On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 5:51 AM Matti Vaittinen
[off-list ref] wrote:

Hello Rob,

On Mon, 2021-03-08 at 10:39 -0700, Rob Herring wrote:

quoted

On Mon, 08 Mar 2021 12:40:50 +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote:

quoted

Document DT bindings for ROHM BD71815.

BD71815 is a single-chip power management IC mainly for battery-
powered
portable devices. The IC integrates 5 bucks, 7 LDOs, a boost driver
for
LED, a battery charger with a Coulomb counter, a real-time clock, a
32kHz
clock and two general-purpose outputs although only one is
documented by
the data-sheet.

Signed-off-by: Matti Vaittinen <redacted>
Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
---
 .../bindings/mfd/rohm,bd71815-pmic.yaml       | 201
++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 201 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/rohm,bd71815-pmic.yaml

My bot found errors running 'make dt_binding_check' on your patch:

I am sorry to bother but I've spent a while trying to reproduce this.
For some reason I can't trigger the error from

'make dt_binding_check' or
'make dt_binding_check
DT_SCHEMA_FILES=Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/rohm,bd71815-
pmic.yaml'

even after I ran

'pip3 install dtschema --upgrade --user'.

I should also have yamllint installed.

quoted

yamllint warnings/errors:

dtschema/dtc warnings/errors:
Unknown file referenced: [Errno 2] No such file or directory:
'/usr/local/lib/python3.8/dist-
packages/dtschema/schemas/regulator/rohm,bd71815-regulator.yaml'

This bothers me slightly. The patch 04/15 should bring-in the
rohm,bd71815-regulator.yaml. Does this error indicate that file is
missing or is my $ref somehow invalid?

Then it's simply a false positive. I usually check these and try to
only send the email if the dependency is not in the series so the
dependency is clear. It's a balance of replying quickly and my time
reviewing the errors.

*** opinion follows - not sure if it just me but... ***

I know I should probably keep my mouth shut but... I am more and more
thinking that the yaml bindings are yet another 'excessive unit-test'
type solution. Tooling which should "force doing things correctly" is
eventually hindering development and causing the end result being sub-
optimal.

It's about validating DTS files actually do what the bindings say.
It's pretty clear that the free form text bindings left a lot of
things ambiguous.

How would you propose we can check every property in a DTS file has a
definition (minimally of it's type)? Freeform text can simply never do
that.

I mean that creating binding docs takes way too much time from someone
like me who is "yaml-illiterate". And when I eventually get yaml done -
the end result is far less descriptive for human eyes than the "good
old" free-text format would've been. I know one can add comments - but
I don't see much of them in the binding docs...

Because people do the minimum? The only comments/description I object
to are duplicating generic descriptions of common properties.

There's certainly lots of things we could do. There are tools which
generate pretty docs out of json-schema. Not sure how useful they
would be OOTB. But I simply don't have the bandwidth to look into
them. I can barely keep up with reviews...

Rob