On 14/02/2022 17:51, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 05:45:40PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 14/02/2022 17:41, Mark Brown wrote: >>>> + properties: >>>> + regulator-name: true >>>> + regulator-always-on: true >>>> + regulator-boot-on: true > >>> Why are these specific generic regulator properties enumerated? > >> additionalProperties=false is used, so all properties, also ones from >> regulator.yaml, have to be mentioned. > >> Why this approach was used? Because the hardware here is very limited, >> so no other properties are expected. No other features are supported. > > That's not going to scale well if we add any new features in the core, > and doesn't include things like coupling which could be applied to any > regulator. Relaxing constraints - removing required nodes and using uneavluatedProperties=false - is still possible. Unlike the other way if we ever wanted to restrict too flexible bindings. You mantioned new features - this approach does not change that. If you add new properties to common schema, you already alter bindings. Just because we use common part, it does not change the fact that it is a bindings change. Adding new features in common schema is the same binding change as adding new feature in the specific binding, except more work. I guess you though that work in scaling, so yes, this scales worse. The benefit is that this really restricts usage of regulator to what is supported, so allows to detect wrongly configured DTS. Once coupling (or any other feature) is supported, each of such restricted regulator bindings should be independently revised, instead of adding this new feature to everything. Best regards, Krzysztof
