On 2021-11-02 23:27, Horatiu Vultur wrote: > The 11/02/2021 13:37, Rob Herring wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 01, 2021 at 10:32:01PM +0100, Horatiu Vultur wrote: >>> The 11/01/2021 15:32, Peter Rosin wrote: *snip* >>> >>> +required: >>> + - compatible >> >> compatible should not be required here. >> >>> + - '#address-cells' >>> + - '#size-cells' >>> + >>> examples: >>> - | >>> /* >>> --- >>> >>> If I have this then my problem is with the required properties because then I >>> start to get new warnings once I run: >>> >>> make ARCH=arm CROSS_COMPILE=arm-linux- dtbs_check DT_SCHEMA_FILES=Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mux.yaml >>> >>> For example, one of new the warnings is this: >>> >>> /home/hvultur/linux/arch/arm/boot/dts/am335x-icev2.dt.yaml: mux-mii-hog: 'compatible' is a required property >>> From schema: /home/hvultur/linux/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mux.yaml >>> /home/hvultur/linux/arch/arm/boot/dts/am335x-icev2.dt.yaml: mux-mii-hog: '#address-cells' is a required property >>> From schema: /home/hvultur/linux/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mux.yaml >>> /home/hvultur/linux/arch/arm/boot/dts/am335x-icev2.dt.yaml: mux-mii-hog: '#size-cells' is a required property >>> From schema: /home/hvultur/linux/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mux.yaml >> >> This is because of the $nodename pattern being pretty lax and matches >> on mux-mii-hog by mistake. We have 2 options. Change the nodename >> pattern to '^(i2c-?)?mux(@.*)?$' or add 'select: false'. The former >> would still match on 'mux' or 'mux@.*' which might still have problems. >> For the latter, we just need to make sure all the i2c-mux schemas have a >> $ref to this schema. Also, with that change we'd stop checking 'i2c-mux' >> nodes that don't yet have a specific schema. That said, I do lean toward >> the latter option. > > From what I can see there are only two i2c-mux schemas and both of them > have a $ref to this schema [1][2] > > [1] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mux-gpmux.yaml#L33 > [2] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mux-pca954x.yaml#L16 I'm a relative yaml bindings newbie, but I assume adding "select: false" will have the side effect of not enforcing this i2c-mux schema on i2c-muxes that have not yet been converted to yaml? E.g. i2c-mux-gpio.txt, i2c-mux-pinctrl.txt etc etc. But there are not too many of those. Is it a prerequisite to update those bindings to yaml before doing "select: false"? Looking further I think there's a total of about 15-20 drivers doing i2c-muxing (or arbing/gating), and some of those exist outside the "i2c umbrella". I wonder if e.g. this one [1] should really reference i2c-controller.yaml as it is currently doing, or if i2c-mux.yaml is correct? [1] Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/supply/sbs,sbs-manager.yaml Maybe i2c-mux.yaml didn't work in that case because the node names were "wrong" and did not match the pattern and then someone stuck i2c-controller.yaml in there simply because that was close enough, and also happened to work? Cheers, Peter
