Hi Rob, Arınç, On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 10:51:47AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 12:28:06PM +0300, Arınç ÜNAL wrote: > > On 10.12.2022 21:02, Colin Foster wrote: > > > Hi Arınç, > > > On Sat, Dec 10, 2022 at 07:24:42PM +0300, Arınç ÜNAL wrote: > > > > On 10.12.2022 06:30, Colin Foster wrote: > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/mediatek,mt7530.yaml > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/mediatek,mt7530.yam > > > @@ -156,8 +156,7 @@ patternProperties: > > > > > > patternProperties: > > > "^(ethernet-)?port@[0-9]+$": > > > - type: object > > > - > > > + $ref: dsa-port.yaml# > > > properties: > > > reg: > > > description: > > > @@ -165,7 +164,6 @@ patternProperties: > > > for user ports. > > > > > > allOf: > > > - - $ref: dsa-port.yaml# > > > - if: > > > required: [ ethernet ] > > > then: > > > > > > > > > > > > This one has me [still] scratching my head... > > > > Right there with you. In addition to this, having or deleting type object > > on/from "^(ethernet-)?ports$" and "^(ethernet-)?port@[0-9]+$" on dsa.yaml > > doesn't cause any warnings (checked with make dt_binding_check > > DT_SCHEMA_FILES=net/dsa) which makes me question why it's there in the first > > place. > > > That check probably doesn't consider an ref being under an 'allOf'. > Perhaps what is missing in understanding is every schema at the > top-level has an implicit 'type: object'. But nothing is ever implicit > in json-schema which will silently ignore keywords which don't make > sense for an instance type. Instead of a bunch of boilerplate, the > processed schema has 'type' added in lots of cases such as this one. > > Rob What do you suggest on this set? I think this is the only outstanding issue, and Jakub brought up the possibility of applying end of today (maybe 5-6 hours from now in the US). It seems like there's an issue with the dt_bindings_check that causes the "allOf: $ref" to throw a warning when it shouldn't. So removing the "type: object" was supposed to be correct, but throws warnings. It seems like keeping this patch as-is and updating it when the check gets fixed might be an acceptable path, but I'd understand if you disagree and prefer a resubmission.
