Hi Kieran,
On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 10:43:10AM +0100, Kieran Bingham wrote:
> Hi Jacopo,
>
> On 13/05/2020 13:54, Jacopo Mondi wrote:
> > Subject: [PATCH] fixup! dt-bindings: media: i2c: Add bindings for Maxima Integrated MAX9286
> >
> > Temporary fixup to ease review. To be squashed into v10 if accepted.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jacopo Mondi <jacopo+renesas@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >
> > While fixing Rob's reported bug on v9 I realized thanks to a
> > dt_binding_check warning that the i2c-mux child nodes where under-specified.
> >
> > This fixup epxands the i2c-mux child nodes description and updates the
> > example to match our currently-out-of-tree DTS files for GMSL platforms.
> >
> > dt_binding_check still reports a warning:
> >
> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/i2c/maxim,max9286.example.dt.yaml: camera@51: reg: [[81, 97]] is too short
> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/i2c/maxim,max9286.example.dt.yaml: camera@52: reg: [[82, 98]] is too short
> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/i2c/maxim,max9286.example.dt.yaml: camera@53: reg: [[83, 99]] is too short
> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/i2c/maxim,max9286.example.dt.yaml: camera@54: reg: [[84, 100]] is too short
>
> Is too short? That seems odd. We accept 1, 2, or 3 values in the reg
> (for the serializer, camera, mcu addresses) but those values are
> specific to the camera device, and are managed by that driver and
> shouldn't be validated here.
I think it's expected them to be validated against this schema, not
sure what's the warning about though.
>
>
> >
> > Which I was not able to silence.
> > ---
> > .../bindings/media/i2c/maxim,max9286.yaml | 86 +++++++++++++++++--
> > 1 file changed, 77 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/i2c/maxim,max9286.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/i2c/maxim,max9286.yaml
> > index f9d3e5712c59..d9bd19caed2f 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/i2c/maxim,max9286.yaml
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/i2c/maxim,max9286.yaml
> > @@ -130,9 +130,7 @@ properties:
> > description: |
> > Each GMSL link is modelled as a child bus of an i2c bus
> > multiplexer/switch, in accordance with bindings described in
> > - Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mux.txt. The serializer
> > - device on the remote end of the GMSL link shall be modelled as a child
> > - node of the corresponding I2C bus.
> > + Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mux.txt.
> >
> > properties:
> > '#address-cells':
> > @@ -141,7 +139,74 @@ properties:
> > '#size-cells':
> > const: 0
> >
> > - additionalProperties: false
> > + patternProperties:
> > + "^i2c@[0-3]$":
> > + type: object
> > + description: |
> > + Child node of the i2c bus multiplexer which represents a GMSL link.
> > + Each serializer device on the GMSL link remote end is represented with
> > + an i2c-mux child node. The MAX9286 chip supports up to 4 GMSL
> > + channels.
> > +
> > + properties:
> > + '#address-cells':
> > + const: 1
> > +
> > + '#size-cells':
> > + const: 0
> > +
> > + reg:
> > + description: The index of the GMSL channel.
> > + maxItems: 1
> > +
> > + patternProperties:
> > + "^camera@[0-9]+":
>
> This value after @ represents a non 0x prefixed hex value, where your
> regex will only match numerical values.
>
> "^camera@[a-f0-9]+":
>
>
>
> is likely therefore required.
>
Uh, correct
> I see other uses of this patternProperties also terminate the regex with
> a $ (end of line) but that confuses me, as the node is often presented
> with the opening brace after the name and identifier:
>
> (i.e.)
> camera@52 {
>
> But perhaps the validator extracts the node name and reg and matches on
> that directly in which case it would be
>
> "^camera@[a-f0-9]+$":
I've initially used '$' as well then removed it for the same reason.
MAybe the patter is only matched against the node name, leaving out the
rest of the line.
>
>
>
> > + type: object
> > + description: |
> > + The remote camera device, composed by a GMSL serializer and a
> > + connected video source.
> > +
> > + properties:
> > + compatible:
> > + description: The remote device compatible string.
> > +
> > + reg:
> > + description: |
> > + The I2C addresses to be assigned to the remote devices through
> > + address reprogramming. The number of entries depends on the
> > + requirements of the currently connected remote device.
> > +
> > + port:
> > + type: object
> > +
> > + properties:
> > + endpoint:
> > + type: object
> > +
> > + properties:
> > + remote-endpoint:
> > + description: phandle to the MAX9286 sink endpoint.
> > +
> > + required:
> > + - remote-endpoint
> > +
> > + additionalProperties: false
> > +
> > + required:
> > + - endpoint
> > +
> > + additionalProperties: false
> > +
> > + required:
> > + - compatible
> > + - reg
> > + - port
> > +
> > + additionalProperties: false
> > +
> > + additionalProperties: false
> > +
> > + additionalProperties: false
> >
>
>
> Wow, is it required to specify additionalProperties: false quite so many
> times?
I -think- so, it's one per section, and unless it's by default it
makes sense to have it there ?
>
>
> > required:
> > - compatible
> > @@ -220,11 +285,11 @@ examples:
> > i2c@0 {
> > #address-cells = <1>;
> > #size-cells = <0>;
> > -
> > reg = <0>;
> >
> > camera@51 {
> > - reg = <0x51>;
> > + compatible = "imi,rdacm20";
> > + reg = <0x51 0x61>;
> >
> > port {
> > rdacm20_out0: endpoint {
> > @@ -241,7 +306,8 @@ examples:
> > reg = <1>;
> >
> > camera@52 {
> > - reg = <0x52>;
> > + compatible = "imi,rdacm20";
> > + reg = <0x52 0x62>;
> >
> > port {
> > rdacm20_out1: endpoint {
> > @@ -257,7 +323,8 @@ examples:
> > reg = <2>;
> >
> > camera@53 {
> > - reg = <0x53>;
> > + compatible = "imi,rdacm20";
> > + reg = <0x53 0x63>;
> >
> > port {
> > rdacm20_out2: endpoint {
> > @@ -273,7 +340,8 @@ examples:
> > reg = <3>;
> >
> > camera@54 {
> > - reg = <0x54>;
> > + compatible = "imi,rdacm20";
> > + reg = <0x54 0x64>;
> >
> > port {
> > rdacm20_out3: endpoint {
> > --
> > 2.26.2
> >
>
