On Tue, Nov 05, 2024 at 01:41:26PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
[...]
> > Schema check will fail, but driver wize it will work just fine.
>
> Schema will not fail. That's the problem - no errors will be ever
> reported. The entire point of the schema, in contrast to TXT, is to
> detect errors and that ridiculous wildcard used as front compatible
> affects/reduces detection.
NOW I get it :)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/ti,tcan4x5x.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/ti,tcan4x5x.yaml
index f1d18a5461e0..4fb5e5e80a03 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/ti,tcan4x5x.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/ti,tcan4x5x.yaml
@@ -169,7 +169,7 @@ examples:
#size-cells = <0>;
can@0 {
- compatible = "ti,tcan4552", "ti,tcan4x5x";
+ compatible = "ti,tcan4552";
reg = <0>;
clocks = <&can0_osc>;
pinctrl-names = "default";
Would result in a schema check fail, but the driver will never be probed.
>
> > Agree that is kinda broken.
> > If I have time I can try to fix that later.
>
> No, the fix is to drop the wildcard alone, as I said in your RFC.
@Mark, would you be okay with fixing the wildcard in this series?
We have some out-of-tree dtb's that will need fixing, but I get it would be
prefered to get this fixed.
>
> >
> > Please explain one more time for me. Is this a comment on the if
> > sentence or the broken behavior of the driver?
>
> This is just generic comment, nothing to change here because you decided
> not to fix that wildcard from old binding.
Thanks for the clarification!
@Mark, @Krzysztof: What to do from here?
/Sean
