On 06/06/2023 13:07, Miquel Raynal wrote: > Hi Krzysztof, > > miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote on Tue, 6 Jun 2023 12:57:24 +0200: > >> Hi Krzysztof, >> >> krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx wrote on Tue, 6 Jun 2023 12:40:45 +0200: >> >>> On 06/06/2023 12:37, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On 06/06/2023 12:28, Miquel Raynal wrote: >>>>> Hi Krzysztof, >>>>> >>>>> krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx wrote on Tue, 6 Jun 2023 10:44:34 +0200: >>>>> >>>>>> On 06/06/2023 09:48, Miquel Raynal wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> + it (otherwise it is harmless). >>>>>>>>>>>>> + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/flag >>>>>>>>>>>>> + deprecated: true >>>>>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>>>>> + additionalProperties: false >>>>>>>>>>>> unevaluatedProperties: false >>>>>>>>>>> It was hiding by '"^nand@[0-3]$":'. Should I move it here? >>>>>>>>>> You cannot have both additionalProps and unevaluatedProps at the same >>>>>>>>>> time, so we do not talk about same thing or this was never working? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hmm, I'm a little confused then. At various times I've been told to >>>>>>>>> put 'additionalProperties: false' or 'unevaluatedProperties: false' >>>>>>>>> (although never at the same time). I'm not sure when to use one or the >>>>>>>>> other. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> From what I've been able to glean 'additionalProperties: true' >>>>>>>>> indicates that the node is expected to have child nodes defined in a >>>>>>>>> different schema so I would have thought 'additionalProperties: false' >>>>>>>>> would be appropriate for a schema covering a leaf node. >>>>>>>>> 'unevaluatedProperties: false' seems to enable stricter checking which >>>>>>>>> makes sense when all the properties are described in the schema. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So I think this might be the problem. If I look at qcom,nandc.yaml or >>>>>>>> ingenic,nand.yaml which both have a partitions property in their >>>>>>>> example. Neither have 'unevaluatedProperties: false' on the nand@... >>>>>>>> subnode. If I add it sure enough I start getting complaints about the >>>>>>>> 'partitions' node being unexpected. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sorry if that was unclear, I think the whole logic around the yaml >>>>>>> files is to progressively constrain the descriptions, schema after >>>>>>> schema. IOW, in the marvell binding you should set >>>>>>> unevaluatedProperties: false for the NAND controller. What is inside >>>>>>> (NAND chips, partition container, partition parsers, "mtd" properties, >>>>>>> etc) will be handled by other files. Of course you can constrain a bit >>>>>>> what can/cannot be used inside these subnodes, but I think you don't >>>>>>> need to set unevaluatedProperties in these subnodes (the NAND chip in >>>>>>> this case, or even the partitions) because you already reference >>>>>>> nand-controller.yaml which references nand-chip.yaml, mtd.yaml, >>>>>>> partitions.yaml, etc. *they* will make the generic checks and hopefully >>>>>>> apply stricter checks, when deemed relevant. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, neither nand-controller.yaml nor nand-chip.yaml limit the properties >>>>>> in this context, so each device schema must have unevaluatedProperties: >>>>>> false, for which I asked few emails ago. >>>>> >>>>> The controller description shall be guarded by unevaluatedProperties: >>>>> false, we agree. Do you mean the nand chip description in each nand >>>>> controller binding should also include it at its own level? Because >>>>> that is not what we enforced so far IIRC. I am totally fine doing so >>>>> starting from now on if this is a new requirement (which makes sense). >>>>> >>>>> If yes, then it means we would need to list *all* the nand >>>>> chip properties in each schema, which clearly involves a lot of >>>>> duplication as you would need to define all types of partitions, >>>>> partition parsers, generic properties, etc in order for the examples to >>>>> pass all the checks. Only the properties like pinctrl-* would not need >>>>> to be listed I guess. >>>> >>>> Yes, this is what should be done. Each node should have either >>> >>> Eh, no, I responded in wrong part of message. My yes was for: >>> >>> " Do you mean the nand chip description in each nand >>> controller binding should also include it at its own level?" >> >> Clear. >> >>> >>> Now for actual paragraph: >>> >>> "If yes, then it means we would need to list *all* the nand chip >>> properties in each schema," >>> >>> No, why? I don't understand. Use the same pattern as all other bindings, >>> this is not special. Absolutely all have the same behavior, e.g. >>> mentioned leds. You finish with unevaluatedProps and you're done, which >>> is what I wrote here long, long time ago. >> >> Maybe because so far we did not bother referencing another schema in >> the NAND chip nodes? For your hint to work I guess we should have, in >> each controller binding, something along: >> >> patternProperties: >> "^nand@[a-f0-9]$": >> type: object >> + $ref: nand-chip.yaml# >> properties: >> >> If yes, please ignore the series sent aside, I will work on it again >> and send a v2. > > Actually I already see a problem, let's the ingenic,nand.yaml example. > The goal, IIUC, is to do: > > patternProperties: > "^nand@[a-f0-9]$": > type: object > + $ref: nand-chip.yaml > properties: > > ... > > + unevaluatedProperties: false > > The example in this file uses a property, nand-on-flash-bbt, which is > described inside nand-controller.yaml instead of nand-chip.yaml. > Indeed, the former actually describes many properties which are a bit > more controller related than chip related. With the above description, > the example fails because nand-on-flash-bbt is not allowed (it is not > listed in nand-chip.yaml). > > How would you proceed in this case? > > Maybe I could move all the NAND chip properties which are somehow > related to NAND controllers (and defined in nand-controller.yaml) in a > dedicated file and reference it from nand-chip.yaml? Any other idea is > welcome. Yes, this would work and seems reasonable. Other way could be to add unevaluatedProperties:false on this level (so after ref:nand-chip.yaml) in nand-controller.yaml. This however would not allow any new properties to be defined in device bindings. Best regards, Krzysztof
