Hi Rob and Vladimir, On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 04:25:53AM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > 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#" > > ? Looking into documentation (I promise I did some reading / research to try to get a stronger understanding of the documentation yaml) I came across the history of ethernet-controller.yaml which suggests to me that the pattern: allOf: - $ref: is frowned upon commit 3d21a4609335: ("dt-bindings: Remove cases of 'allOf' containing a '$ref'") I do have a knack for misinterpreting data, but I read that as: allOf: - $ref: shouldn't be used unless there's more than one list entry. All that aside, I did upgrade from 2022.5 to 2022.9 just now and do see these dtschema errors now. I'll be sure to use this before resubmitting. > > 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. That makes a lot of sense - and helps me understand why I had so much trouble understanding why it originally was "additionalProperties: true" I'll obviously take another look at this. The nxp,sja1105.yaml seemed to be most akin to what the qca8k.yaml needed to be - that is "take dsa.yaml and add a couple extra properties to the ports nodes". But there's always subleties. > > > > > +unevaluatedProperties: false