netdev - Re: [PATCH v1 net-next 3/7] dt-bindings: net: dsa: qca8k: utilize shared dsa.yaml

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 27 Oct 2022 04:25:53 +0300
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc:     Colin Foster <colin.foster@...advantage.com>,
        linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>,
        John Crispin <john@...ozen.org>,
        Sean Wang <sean.wang@...iatek.com>,
        DENG Qingfang <dqfext@...il.com>,
        Landen Chao <Landen.Chao@...iatek.com>,
        nç ÜNAL <arinc.unal@...nc9.com>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 net-next 3/7] dt-bindings: net: dsa: qca8k: utilize
 shared dsa.yaml

Hi Rob,

On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 04:21:14PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 10:03:51PM -0700, Colin Foster wrote:
> > The dsa.yaml binding contains duplicated bindings for address and size
> > cells, as well as the reference to dsa-port.yaml. Instead of duplicating
> > this information, remove the reference to dsa-port.yaml and include the
> > full reference to dsa.yaml.
> 
> I don't think this works without further restructuring. Essentially, 
> 'unevaluatedProperties' on works on a single level. So every level has 
> to define all properties at that level either directly in 
> properties/patternProperties or within a $ref.
> 
> See how graph.yaml is structured and referenced for an example how this 
> has to work.
> 
> > @@ -104,8 +98,6 @@ patternProperties:
> >                SGMII on the QCA8337, it is advised to set this unless a communication
> >                issue is observed.
> >  
> > -        unevaluatedProperties: false
> > -
> 
> Dropping this means any undefined properties in port nodes won't be an 
> error. Once I fix all the issues related to these missing, there will be 
> a meta-schema checking for this (this could be one I fixed already).

I may be misreading, but here, "unevaluatedProperties: false" from dsa.yaml
(under patternProperties: "^(ethernet-)?port@[0-9]+$":) is on the same
level as the "unevaluatedProperties: false" that Colin is deleting.

In fact, I believe that it is precisely due to the "unevaluatedProperties: false"
from dsa.yaml that this is causing a failure now:

net/dsa/qca8k.example.dtb: switch@10: ports:port@6: Unevaluated properties are not allowed ('qca,sgmii-rxclk-falling-edge' was unexpected)

Could you please explain why is the 'qca,sgmii-rxclk-falling-edge'
property not evaluated from the perspective of dsa.yaml in the example?
It's a head scratcher to me.

May it have something to do with the fact that Colin's addition:

$ref: "dsa.yaml#"

is not expressed as:

allOf:
  - $ref: "dsa.yaml#"

?

If yes, can you explain exactly what is the difference with respect to
unevaluatedProperties?

> >  oneOf:
> >    - required:
> >        - ports
> > @@ -116,7 +108,7 @@ required:
> >    - compatible
> >    - reg
> >  
> > -additionalProperties: true
> 
> This should certainly be changed though. We should only have 'true' for 
> incomplete collections of properties. IOW, for common bindings.
> 
> > +unevaluatedProperties: false