On 18/08/2024 19:51, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > On Sun, Aug 18, 2024 at 07:44:22PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 18/08/2024 19:41, Laurent Pinchart wrote: >>> Hi Krzysztof, >>> >>> Thank you for the patch. >>> >>> On Sun, Aug 18, 2024 at 07:30:02PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> Each variable-length property like interrupts or resets must have fixed >>>> constraints on number of items for given variant in binding. The >>>> clauses in "if:then:" block should define both limits: upper and lower. >>> >>> I thought that, when only one of minItems or maxItems was specified, the >>> other automatically defaulted to the same value. I'm pretty sure I >>> recall Rob asking me to drop one of the two in some bindings. Has the >>> rule changes ? Is it documented somewhere ? >> >> New dtschema changed it and, even if previous behavior is restored, the >> size in if:then: always had to be constrained. You could have skipped >> one side of limit if it was equal to outer/top-level limit, e.g: >> >> properties: >> clocks: >> minItems: 1 >> maxItems: 2 >> >> >> if:then:properties: >> clocks: >> minItems: 2 > > Where can I find a description of the behaviour of the new dtschema > (hopefully with some documentation) ? No clue, but I feel there is some core concept missing. Your earlier statement: "I thought that, when only one of minItems or maxItems was specified, the" was never logically correct for the "if:then", except for the case I mentioned above. That's why all schema used as examples had it explicit: My talk from 2022, page 30: https://static.sched.com/hosted_files/osseu2022/bd/How%20to%20Get%20Your%20DT%20Schema%20Bindings%20Accepted%20in%20Less%20than%2010%20Iterations%20-%20Krzysztof%20Kozlowski%2C%20Linaro.pdf?_gl=1*kmzqmt*_gcl_au*MTU2MzQ1MjY0Mi4xNzIxNzE0NDc1 all constraints defined,. My talk from 2023, page 34: https://static.sched.com/hosted_files/eoss2023/a8/How%20to%20Get%20Your%20DT%20Schema%20Bindings%20Accepted%20in%20Less%20than%2010%20Iterations%20-%20Krzysztof%20Kozlowski%2C%20Linaro%20-%20ELCE%202023.pdf?_gl=1*1jgx6d3*_gcl_au*MTU2MzQ1MjY0Mi4xNzIxNzE0NDc1 Recently, I started using other example as "useful reference": https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.8/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/qcom,ufs.yaml#L132 That's nothing. All three above reference examples I keep giving are already there and repeated in emails all the time. So aren't you confusing the entire "skip one limit" for top-level properties? This patch is not about it all and dtschema did not change. Best regards, Krzysztof
