[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20221028213556.GA2310662-robh@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2022 16:35:56 -0500
From: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
Cc: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Robert Marko <robert.marko@...tura.hr>,
Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Marcin Wojtas <mw@...ihalf.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] dt-bindings: nvmem: add YAML schema for the ONIE tlv
layout
On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 03:44:31PM +0200, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> Hi Rob & Krzysztof,
>
> robh@...nel.org wrote on Fri, 28 Oct 2022 07:20:05 -0500:
>
> > On Fri, 28 Oct 2022 11:23:34 +0200, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> > > Add a schema for the ONIE tlv NVMEM layout that can be found on any ONIE
> > > compatible networking device.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
> > > ---
> > > .../nvmem/layouts/onie,tlv-layout.yaml | 96 +++++++++++++++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 96 insertions(+)
> > > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/layouts/onie,tlv-layout.yaml
> > >
> >
> > My bot found errors running 'make DT_CHECKER_FLAGS=-m dt_binding_check'
> > on your patch (DT_CHECKER_FLAGS is new in v5.13):
> >
> > yamllint warnings/errors:
> >
> > dtschema/dtc warnings/errors:
> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/layouts/onie,tlv-layout.example.dtb:0:0: /example-0/onie: failed to match any schema with compatible: ['onie,tlv-layout', 'vendor,device']
>
> Oh right, I wanted to ask about this under the three --- but I forgot.
> Here was my question:
>
> How do we make the checker happy with an example where the second
> compatible can be almost anything (any nvmem-compatible device) but the
> first one should be the layout? (this is currently what Michael's
> proposal uses).
That seems like mixing 2 different meanings for compatibles. Perhaps
that should be split with the nvmem stuff going into a child container
node.
Rob
P.S. Any compatible string starting with 'foo' will pass, but I probably
won't be happy to see that used.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists