| Message ID | 20240818173003.122025-1-krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [1/2] dt-bindings: display: renesas, du: narrow interrupts and resets per variants | expand |
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 ? > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> > --- > .../bindings/display/renesas,du.yaml | 22 +++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/renesas,du.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/renesas,du.yaml > index c5b9e6812bce..147842b6465a 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/renesas,du.yaml > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/renesas,du.yaml > @@ -173,6 +173,7 @@ allOf: > - pattern: '^dclkin\.[01]$' > > interrupts: > + minItems: 2 > maxItems: 2 > > resets: > @@ -228,6 +229,7 @@ allOf: > - pattern: '^dclkin\.[01]$' > > interrupts: > + minItems: 2 > maxItems: 2 > > resets: > @@ -281,6 +283,7 @@ allOf: > - pattern: '^dclkin\.[01]$' > > interrupts: > + minItems: 2 > maxItems: 2 > > resets: > @@ -335,6 +338,7 @@ allOf: > - pattern: '^dclkin\.[01]$' > > interrupts: > + minItems: 2 > maxItems: 2 > > resets: > @@ -396,6 +400,7 @@ allOf: > - pattern: '^dclkin\.[012]$' > > interrupts: > + minItems: 3 > maxItems: 3 > > resets: > @@ -460,9 +465,11 @@ allOf: > - pattern: '^dclkin\.[0123]$' > > interrupts: > + minItems: 4 > maxItems: 4 > > resets: > + minItems: 2 > maxItems: 2 > > reset-names: > @@ -489,9 +496,11 @@ allOf: > > renesas,cmms: > minItems: 4 > + maxItems: 4 > > renesas,vsps: > minItems: 4 > + maxItems: 4 > > required: > - clock-names > @@ -531,9 +540,11 @@ allOf: > - pattern: '^dclkin\.[012]$' > > interrupts: > + minItems: 3 > maxItems: 3 > > resets: > + minItems: 2 > maxItems: 2 > > reset-names: > @@ -558,9 +569,11 @@ allOf: > > renesas,cmms: > minItems: 3 > + maxItems: 3 > > renesas,vsps: > minItems: 3 > + maxItems: 3 > > required: > - clock-names > @@ -600,9 +613,11 @@ allOf: > - pattern: '^dclkin\.[013]$' > > interrupts: > + minItems: 3 > maxItems: 3 > > resets: > + minItems: 2 > maxItems: 2 > > reset-names: > @@ -627,9 +642,11 @@ allOf: > > renesas,cmms: > minItems: 3 > + maxItems: 3 > > renesas,vsps: > minItems: 3 > + maxItems: 3 > > required: > - clock-names > @@ -684,6 +701,7 @@ allOf: > > renesas,vsps: > minItems: 1 > + maxItems: 1 > > required: > - clock-names > @@ -719,6 +737,7 @@ allOf: > - pattern: '^dclkin\.[01]$' > > interrupts: > + minItems: 2 > maxItems: 2 > > resets: > @@ -746,9 +765,11 @@ allOf: > > renesas,cmms: > minItems: 2 > + maxItems: 2 > > renesas,vsps: > minItems: 2 > + maxItems: 2 > > required: > - clock-names > @@ -799,6 +820,7 @@ allOf: > > renesas,vsps: > minItems: 2 > + maxItems: 2 > > required: > - clock-names
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 Best regards, Krzysztof
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) ?
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
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. > > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> Acked-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
Hi Krzysztof, On Sun, Aug 18, 2024 at 08:48:54PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > 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: > >>> 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. There must have been a misunderstanding indeed, I interpreted "New dtschema changed it" as meaning there were now new rules. Is that incorrect ? If you don't mind clarifying, what is the current recommendation to indicate that a property has a fixed number of items ? Which of the following three options is preferred ? properties: clocks: minItems: 2 properties: clocks: maxItems: 2 properties: clocks: minItems: 2 maxItems: 2
On 28/08/2024 14:45, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Krzysztof, > > On Sun, Aug 18, 2024 at 08:48:54PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> 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: >>>>> 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. > > There must have been a misunderstanding indeed, I interpreted "New > dtschema changed it" as meaning there were now new rules. Is that > incorrect ? For the binding with a property defined only in top-level properties: no changes, no new rules. For the binding with top-level and if:then:else: dtschema since few months changed interpretation. > > If you don't mind clarifying, what is the current recommendation to > indicate that a property has a fixed number of items ? Which of the > following three options is preferred ? > Answer below assumes we have clocks defined in top-level properties and there is no if:then:else customizing it. > properties: > clocks: > minItems: 2 That's wrong, because items are unconstrained. > > properties: > clocks: > maxItems: 2 This one is preferred. > > properties: > clocks: > minItems: 2 > maxItems: 2 This one is correct, but less preferred. Best regards, Krzysztof
On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 02:52:25PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 28/08/2024 14:45, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 18, 2024 at 08:48:54PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >> 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: > >>>>> 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. > > > > There must have been a misunderstanding indeed, I interpreted "New > > dtschema changed it" as meaning there were now new rules. Is that > > incorrect ? > > For the binding with a property defined only in top-level properties: no > changes, no new rules. > > For the binding with top-level and if:then:else: dtschema since few > months changed interpretation. OK, that's what I didn't understand correctly. > > If you don't mind clarifying, what is the current recommendation to > > indicate that a property has a fixed number of items ? Which of the > > following three options is preferred ? > > Answer below assumes we have clocks defined in top-level properties and > there is no if:then:else customizing it. > > > properties: > > clocks: > > minItems: 2 > > That's wrong, because items are unconstrained. > > > properties: > > clocks: > > maxItems: 2 > > This one is preferred. > > > properties: > > clocks: > > minItems: 2 > > maxItems: 2 > > This one is correct, but less preferred. Thank you, that is clear now.
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/renesas,du.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/renesas,du.yaml index c5b9e6812bce..147842b6465a 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/renesas,du.yaml +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/renesas,du.yaml @@ -173,6 +173,7 @@ allOf: - pattern: '^dclkin\.[01]$' interrupts: + minItems: 2 maxItems: 2 resets: @@ -228,6 +229,7 @@ allOf: - pattern: '^dclkin\.[01]$' interrupts: + minItems: 2 maxItems: 2 resets: @@ -281,6 +283,7 @@ allOf: - pattern: '^dclkin\.[01]$' interrupts: + minItems: 2 maxItems: 2 resets: @@ -335,6 +338,7 @@ allOf: - pattern: '^dclkin\.[01]$' interrupts: + minItems: 2 maxItems: 2 resets: @@ -396,6 +400,7 @@ allOf: - pattern: '^dclkin\.[012]$' interrupts: + minItems: 3 maxItems: 3 resets: @@ -460,9 +465,11 @@ allOf: - pattern: '^dclkin\.[0123]$' interrupts: + minItems: 4 maxItems: 4 resets: + minItems: 2 maxItems: 2 reset-names: @@ -489,9 +496,11 @@ allOf: renesas,cmms: minItems: 4 + maxItems: 4 renesas,vsps: minItems: 4 + maxItems: 4 required: - clock-names @@ -531,9 +540,11 @@ allOf: - pattern: '^dclkin\.[012]$' interrupts: + minItems: 3 maxItems: 3 resets: + minItems: 2 maxItems: 2 reset-names: @@ -558,9 +569,11 @@ allOf: renesas,cmms: minItems: 3 + maxItems: 3 renesas,vsps: minItems: 3 + maxItems: 3 required: - clock-names @@ -600,9 +613,11 @@ allOf: - pattern: '^dclkin\.[013]$' interrupts: + minItems: 3 maxItems: 3 resets: + minItems: 2 maxItems: 2 reset-names: @@ -627,9 +642,11 @@ allOf: renesas,cmms: minItems: 3 + maxItems: 3 renesas,vsps: minItems: 3 + maxItems: 3 required: - clock-names @@ -684,6 +701,7 @@ allOf: renesas,vsps: minItems: 1 + maxItems: 1 required: - clock-names @@ -719,6 +737,7 @@ allOf: - pattern: '^dclkin\.[01]$' interrupts: + minItems: 2 maxItems: 2 resets: @@ -746,9 +765,11 @@ allOf: renesas,cmms: minItems: 2 + maxItems: 2 renesas,vsps: minItems: 2 + maxItems: 2 required: - clock-names @@ -799,6 +820,7 @@ allOf: renesas,vsps: minItems: 2 + maxItems: 2 required: - clock-names
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. Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> --- .../bindings/display/renesas,du.yaml | 22 +++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+)