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.
A schema with unevaluatedProperties can "see" into a $ref, but the
ref'ed schema having unevaluatedProperties can't see back to the
referring schema for properties defined there.
So if a schema is referenced by other schemas which can define their own
additional properties, that schema cannot have 'unevaluatedProperties:
false'. If both schemas have 'unevaluatedProperties: false', then it's
just redundant. We may end up doing that just because it's not obvious
when we have both or not, and no unevaluatedProperties/
additionalProperties at all is a bigger issue. I'm working on a
meta-schema to check this.
> May it have something to do with the fact that Colin's addition:
>
> $ref: "dsa.yaml#"
>
> is not expressed as:
>
> allOf:
> - $ref: "dsa.yaml#"
>
> ?
No. Either way behaves the same. We generally only use 'allOf' when
there might be more than 1 entry. That is mostly just at the top-level.
Rob
