Hi Rob,
On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 04:21:14PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 10:03:51PM -0700, Colin Foster wrote:
> > The dsa.yaml binding contains duplicated bindings for address and size
> > cells, as well as the reference to dsa-port.yaml. Instead of duplicating
> > this information, remove the reference to dsa-port.yaml and include the
> > full reference to dsa.yaml.
>
> I don't think this works without further restructuring. Essentially,
> 'unevaluatedProperties' on works on a single level. So every level has
> to define all properties at that level either directly in
> properties/patternProperties or within a $ref.
>
> See how graph.yaml is structured and referenced for an example how this
> has to work.
>
> > @@ -104,8 +98,6 @@ patternProperties:
> > SGMII on the QCA8337, it is advised to set this unless a communication
> > issue is observed.
> >
> > - unevaluatedProperties: false
> > -
>
> Dropping this means any undefined properties in port nodes won't be an
> error. Once I fix all the issues related to these missing, there will be
> a meta-schema checking for this (this could be one I fixed already).
I may be misreading, but here, "unevaluatedProperties: false" from dsa.yaml
(under patternProperties: "^(ethernet-)?port@[0-9]+$":) is on the same
level as the "unevaluatedProperties: false" that Colin is deleting.
In fact, I believe that it is precisely due to the "unevaluatedProperties: false"
from dsa.yaml that this is causing a failure now:
net/dsa/qca8k.example.dtb: switch@10: ports:port@6: Unevaluated properties are not allowed ('qca,sgmii-rxclk-falling-edge' was unexpected)
Could you please explain why is the 'qca,sgmii-rxclk-falling-edge'
property not evaluated from the perspective of dsa.yaml in the example?
It's a head scratcher to me.
May it have something to do with the fact that Colin's addition:
$ref: "dsa.yaml#"
is not expressed as:
allOf:
- $ref: "dsa.yaml#"
?
If yes, can you explain exactly what is the difference with respect to
unevaluatedProperties?
> > oneOf:
> > - required:
> > - ports
> > @@ -116,7 +108,7 @@ required:
> > - compatible
> > - reg
> >
> > -additionalProperties: true
>
> This should certainly be changed though. We should only have 'true' for
> incomplete collections of properties. IOW, for common bindings.
>
> > +unevaluatedProperties: false
