[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <526b6f56-7807-4bb6-9365-077b1cc490b2@linaro.org>
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2024 20:48:54 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
Cc: Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham+renesas@...asonboard.com>,
David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>, Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: display: renesas,du: narrow interrupts
and resets per variants
On 18/08/2024 19:51, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 18, 2024 at 07:44:22PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 18/08/2024 19:41, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>> Hi Krzysztof,
>>>
>>> Thank you for the patch.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Aug 18, 2024 at 07:30:02PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> Each variable-length property like interrupts or resets must have fixed
>>>> constraints on number of items for given variant in binding. The
>>>> clauses in "if:then:" block should define both limits: upper and lower.
>>>
>>> I thought that, when only one of minItems or maxItems was specified, the
>>> other automatically defaulted to the same value. I'm pretty sure I
>>> recall Rob asking me to drop one of the two in some bindings. Has the
>>> rule changes ? Is it documented somewhere ?
>>
>> New dtschema changed it and, even if previous behavior is restored, the
>> size in if:then: always had to be constrained. You could have skipped
>> one side of limit if it was equal to outer/top-level limit, e.g:
>>
>> properties:
>> clocks:
>> minItems: 1
>> maxItems: 2
>>
>>
>> if:then:properties:
>> clocks:
>> minItems: 2
>
> Where can I find a description of the behaviour of the new dtschema
> (hopefully with some documentation) ?
No clue, but I feel there is some core concept missing. Your earlier
statement:
"I thought that, when only one of minItems or maxItems was specified, the"
was never logically correct for the "if:then", except for the case I
mentioned above. That's why all schema used as examples had it explicit:
My talk from 2022, page 30:
https://static.sched.com/hosted_files/osseu2022/bd/How%20to%20Get%20Your%20DT%20Schema%20Bindings%20Accepted%20in%20Less%20than%2010%20Iterations%20-%20Krzysztof%20Kozlowski%2C%20Linaro.pdf?_gl=1*kmzqmt*_gcl_au*MTU2MzQ1MjY0Mi4xNzIxNzE0NDc1
all constraints defined,.
My talk from 2023, page 34:
https://static.sched.com/hosted_files/eoss2023/a8/How%20to%20Get%20Your%20DT%20Schema%20Bindings%20Accepted%20in%20Less%20than%2010%20Iterations%20-%20Krzysztof%20Kozlowski%2C%20Linaro%20-%20ELCE%202023.pdf?_gl=1*1jgx6d3*_gcl_au*MTU2MzQ1MjY0Mi4xNzIxNzE0NDc1
Recently, I started using other example as "useful reference":
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.8/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/qcom,ufs.yaml#L132
That's nothing. All three above reference examples I keep giving are
already there and repeated in emails all the time.
So aren't you confusing the entire "skip one limit" for top-level
properties? This patch is not about it all and dtschema did not change.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists