On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 04:20:40PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 08:27:34PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > On 10/02/2025 20:15, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > On Sun, Feb 09, 2025 at 09:50:37PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > >>> Ah, neat, that would almost solve the problem but you wrote: > > >>> > > >>> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/memblock/reserve_mem.yaml# > > >>> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > > >>> > > >>> so no, this does not work like that. You use devicetree here namespace > > >>> and ignore its rules. > > >> > > >> ... and that obviously is barely parseable, so maybe one more try: > > >> "You use here devicetree namespace but ignore its rules." > > > > > > It makes sense to me, there should be zero cross-over of the two > > > specs, KHO should be completely self defined and stand alone. > > > > > > There is some documentation missing, I think. This yaml describes one > > > node type, but the entire overall structure of the fdt does not seem > > > to have documentation? > > > > A lot of ABI is missing there and undocumented like: node name (which > > for every standard DT would be a NAK), few properties. This binding > > describes only subset while skipping all the rest and effectively > > introducing implied/undocumented ABI. > > I agree, I think it can be easily adressed - the docs should have a > sample of the overal DT from the root node and yaml for each of the > blocks, laying out the purpose very much like the open dt spec.. I'll update the docs with more details about overall structure and will make it clear that it's a different namespace. > Jason -- Sincerely yours, Mike.
