On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 03:44:31PM +0200, Miquel Raynal wrote: > Hi Rob & Krzysztof, > > robh@xxxxxxxxxx wrote on Fri, 28 Oct 2022 07:20:05 -0500: > > > On Fri, 28 Oct 2022 11:23:34 +0200, Miquel Raynal wrote: > > > Add a schema for the ONIE tlv NVMEM layout that can be found on any ONIE > > > compatible networking device. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > .../nvmem/layouts/onie,tlv-layout.yaml | 96 +++++++++++++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 96 insertions(+) > > > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/layouts/onie,tlv-layout.yaml > > > > > > > My bot found errors running 'make DT_CHECKER_FLAGS=-m dt_binding_check' > > on your patch (DT_CHECKER_FLAGS is new in v5.13): > > > > yamllint warnings/errors: > > > > dtschema/dtc warnings/errors: > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/layouts/onie,tlv-layout.example.dtb:0:0: /example-0/onie: failed to match any schema with compatible: ['onie,tlv-layout', 'vendor,device'] > > Oh right, I wanted to ask about this under the three --- but I forgot. > Here was my question: > > How do we make the checker happy with an example where the second > compatible can be almost anything (any nvmem-compatible device) but the > first one should be the layout? (this is currently what Michael's > proposal uses). That seems like mixing 2 different meanings for compatibles. Perhaps that should be split with the nvmem stuff going into a child container node. Rob P.S. Any compatible string starting with 'foo' will pass, but I probably won't be happy to see that used.
