Hi Krzysztof, On Sun, Aug 18, 2024 at 08:48:54PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > 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: > >>> 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. There must have been a misunderstanding indeed, I interpreted "New dtschema changed it" as meaning there were now new rules. Is that incorrect ? If you don't mind clarifying, what is the current recommendation to indicate that a property has a fixed number of items ? Which of the following three options is preferred ? properties: clocks: minItems: 2 properties: clocks: maxItems: 2 properties: clocks: minItems: 2 maxItems: 2 -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
