On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 10:44:09AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> 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.
Thanks for this information. So if I'm understanding correctly:
- All DSA chips I'm modifying should reference dsa.yaml, as they
currently are.
- As such, these all should have unevaluatedProperties: true, so they
can see into dsa.yaml.
- dsa.yaml, and any schema that gets $ref:'d, can not have
unevaluatedProperties: false, unless the desire is to forbid any
other properties to be added.
I'll get another patch set out this week with all these changes, and
tested against the latest dt_bindings_check.
>
>
> > 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
