On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 4:45 AM Heiko Stuebner [off-list ref] wrote:

Hi Rob,

either I'm misunderstanding that, or something did go a bit wrong during
the conversion, as pointed out below:

Am Freitag, 5. Oktober 2018, 18:58:40 CEST schrieb Rob Herring:

quoted

Convert Rockchip SoC bindings to DT schema format using json-schema.

Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>
Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Cc: linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org
Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
---
 .../devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.txt      | 220 ----------------
 .../devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml     | 242 ++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 242 insertions(+), 220 deletions(-)
 delete mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.txt
 create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml

quoted

+properties:
+  $nodename:
+    const: '/'
+  compatible:
+    oneOf:
+      - items:
+          - enum:
+              - amarula,vyasa-rk3288
+              - asus,rk3288-tinker
+              - radxa,rock2-square
+              - chipspark,popmetal-rk3288
+              - netxeon,r89
+              - firefly,firefly-rk3288
+              - firefly,firefly-rk3288-beta
+              - firefly,firefly-rk3288-reload
+              - mqmaker,miqi
+              - rockchip,rk3288-fennec
+          - const: rockchip,rk3288

These are very much distinct boards, so shouldn't they also get
individual entries including their existing description like the phytec
or google boards below?

It is grouped by SoC compatible and # of compatible strings. So this
one is all the cases that have 2 compatible strings. It is simply
saying the 1st compatible string must be one of the enums and the 2nd
compatible string must be "rockchip,rk3288".

Similarly why is it an enum for those, while the Google boards get a
const for each compatible string?

Because each Google board is a fixed list of strings.

Most non-google boards below also lost their description and where lumped
together into combined entries. Was that intentional?

If the description was just repeating the compatible string with
spaces and capitalization, then yes it was intentional. If your
description matches what you have for 'model', then I'd prefer to see
model added as a property schema.

Rob