[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4ff1354e-07c6-5518-879d-1ad55f04e22a@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 20:45:22 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
Cc: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, patches@...ts.linux.dev,
chrome-platform@...ts.linux.dev,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS"
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>,
Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>,
Hsin-Yi Wang <hsinyi@...omium.org>,
"Joseph S. Barrera III" <joebar@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] dt-bindings: google,cros-ec-keyb: Introduce
switches only compatible
On 03/05/2022 18:14, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, May 3, 2022 at 8:54 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 03/05/2022 17:46, Doug Anderson wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 3, 2022 at 8:42 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
>>> <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 03/05/2022 06:22, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>>>>> If the ChromeOS board is a detachable, this cros-ec-keyb device won't
>>>>> have a matrix keyboard but it may have some button switches, e.g. volume
>>>>> buttons and power buttons. The driver still registers a keyboard though
>>>>> and that leads to userspace confusion around where the keyboard is.
>>>>
>>>> (...)
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> +if:
>>>>> + properties:
>>>>> + compatible:
>>>>> + contains:
>>>>> + const: google,cros-ec-keyb
>>>>> +then:
>>>>> + allOf:
>>>>> + - $ref: "/schemas/input/matrix-keymap.yaml#"
>>>>> + required:
>>>>> + - keypad,num-rows
>>>>> + - keypad,num-columns
>>>>> + - linux,keymap
>>>>
>>>> else:
>>>> properties:
>>>> function-row-phsymap: false
>>>> google,needs-ghost-filter: false
>>>>
>>>> Because these are not valid for the non-matrix-keyboard case, right?
>>>
>>> Isn't that implicit because this file has `unevaluatedProperties: false` ?
>>
>> But they are evaluated here, aren't they?
>
> Only if the "if" test, though?
No, they are evaluated always. They are listed directly in properties,
not in "if", therefore they will be considered as always evaluated.
> ...ah, or is this a difference between
> "unevaluatedProperties" and "additionalProperties" ?
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists