> > Are specific ethernet controllers allowed to add their own properties in > > led nodes? If so, this doesn't work. As-is, this allows any other > > properties. You need 'unevaluatedProperties: false' here to prevent > > that. But then no one can add properties. If you want to support that, > > then you need this to be a separate schema that devices can optionally > > include if they don't extend the properties, and then devices that > > extend the binding would essentially have the above with: > > > > $ref: /schemas/leds/common.yaml# > > unevaluatedProperties: false > > properties: > > a-custom-device-prop: ... > > > > > > If you wanted to define both common ethernet LED properties and > > device specific properties, then you'd need to replace leds/common.yaml > > above with the ethernet one. > > > > This is all the same reasons the DSA/switch stuff and graph bindings are > > structured the way they are. > > > > Hi Rob, thanks for the review/questions. > > The idea of all of this is to keep leds node as standard as possible. > It was asked to add unevaluatedProperties: False but I didn't understood > it was needed also for the led nodes. > > leds/common.yaml have additionalProperties set to true but I guess that > is not OK for the final schema and we need something more specific. > > Looking at the common.yaml schema reg binding is missing so an > additional schema is needed. > > Reg is needed for ethernet LEDs and PHY but I think we should also permit > to skip that if the device actually have just one LED. (if this wouldn't > complicate the implementation. Maybe some hints from Andrew about this > decision?) I would make reg mandatory. We should not encourage additional properties, but i also think we cannot block it. The problem we have is that there is absolutely no standardisation here. Vendors are free to do whatever they want, and they do. So i would not be too surprised if some vendor properties are needed eventually. Andrew
