On 18/05/2023 11:05, Varadarajan Narayanan wrote:
> On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 09:09:12AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 18/05/2023 07:40, Varadarajan Narayanan wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 09:00:49AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 17/05/2023 07:57, Varadarajan Narayanan wrote:
>>>>> Part-1 is adding the 'const' entries at the beginning i.e.
>>>>>
>>>>> + - const: qcom,tsens-v0_1
>>>>> + - const: qcom,tsens-v1
>>>>> + - const: qcom,tsens-v2
>>>>> + - const: qcom,ipq8074-tsens
>>>>>
>>>>> Part-2 is changing from one valid syntax to another i.e.
>>>>>
>>>>> + items:
>>>>> + - enum:
>>>>> + - qcom,ipq9574-tsens
>>>>> + - const: qcom,ipq8074-tsens
>>>>>
>>>>> Without both of the above changes, either or both of dtbs_check
>>>>> & dt_binding_check fails. So, it is not possible to just add the
>>>>> "valid hunk" (part-2) alone.
>>>>
>>>> Of course it is. All schema files work like that...
>>>>>
>>>>> If having both part-1 and part-2 in the same patch is not
>>>>> acceptable, shall I split them into two patches? Please let me know.
>>>>
>>>> No, hunk one is not justified.
>>>
>>> For the other compatibles, the enum entries and const/fallback
>>> entries are different. For the 9574 & 8074 case, we want to have
>>> qcom,ipq8074-tsens as both enum and const/fallback entry. Hence,
>>> if we don't have the first hunk, dtbs_check fails for 8074
>>> related dtbs
>>>
>>> ipq8074-hk01.dtb: thermal-sensor@4a9000: compatible: 'oneOf' condition
>>> ['qcom,ipq8074-tsens'] is too short
>>
>> Why? It is already there. Open the file and you will see that this is
>> already covered.
>
> I guess dtbs_check doesn't like the same value being a const and
> a oneof entry.
I don't understand.
> Have attached the file, please see if something is
> not in order.
I don't know what changed there. Please work on patches.
>
>> If you remove it, then yes, you will see errors and the answer is: do
>> not remove it.
>
> I haven't removed it.
You did. Look:
- description: v2 of TSENS with combined interrupt
- enum:
- - qcom,ipq8074-tsens
The first character in the diff (-) means removal.
> For this patch, ipq8074-tsens changed from
> being an oneof enum entry to a const entry. Probably, that is why
> dtbs_check is giving these errors.
You removed the entry which you should not have touched.
>
>>> ipq8074-hk10-c2.dtb: thermal-sensor@4a9000: compatible: 'oneOf' condition
>>> ['qcom,ipq8074-tsens'] is too short
>>>
>>> ipq8074-hk10-c1.dtb: thermal-sensor@4a9000: compatible: 'oneOf' condition
>>> ['qcom,ipq8074-tsens'] is too short
>>>
>>> I'm not sure of the correct solution. Having the first hunk
>>> solves the above dtbs_check errors, so went with it. I'm able to
>>> avoid dtbs_check errors with just one entry in the first hunk.
>>
>> You made multiple changes in one patch which is not correct. Your goal
>> is to add only one change - ipq9574 followed by ipq8074. Add this one.
>> Don't touch others.
>
> But that breaks dtbs_check.
All other cases, hundreds of other binding files, do not have problem.
Only this one "breaks dtbs_check". No, it does not.
Whatever is broken is result of your removal of unrelated pieces.
>
>>> + - const: qcom,ipq8074-tsens
>>>
>>> Please let me know if there is a better way to resolve this or we
>>> can have just the 8074 entry in the first hunk.
>>
>> You only need to add new item on the oneOf list:
>> - enum
>> - ipq9574
>> - const: ipq8074
>
> The "['qcom,ipq8074-tsens'] is too short" errors were generated
> with the above snippet only. Please see the attachment
It's not true. The error you see is result because you removed something
you should not. I did not ask you to remove anything. So repeating -
"add new item". Adding is not "removal and adding". Adding is just "adding".
Best regards,
Krzysztof
