On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 10:44:09AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:

On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 04:25:53AM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:

quoted

Hi Rob,

On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 04:21:14PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 10:03:51PM -0700, Colin Foster wrote:

quoted

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.

quoted

@@ -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.

A schema with unevaluatedProperties can "see" into a $ref, but the 
ref'ed schema having unevaluatedProperties can't see back to the 
referring schema for properties defined there.

So if a schema is referenced by other schemas which can define their own 
additional properties, that schema cannot have 'unevaluatedProperties: 
false'. If both schemas have 'unevaluatedProperties: false', then it's 
just redundant. We may end up doing that just because it's not obvious 
when we have both or not, and no unevaluatedProperties/ 
additionalProperties at all is a bigger issue. I'm working on a 
meta-schema to check this.

Thanks for this information. So if I'm understanding correctly:

 - All DSA chips I'm modifying should reference dsa.yaml, as they
   currently are.
 - As such, these all should have unevaluatedProperties: true, so they
   can see into dsa.yaml.
 - dsa.yaml, and any schema that gets $ref:'d, can not have
   unevaluatedProperties: false, unless the desire is to forbid any
   other properties to be added.

I'll get another patch set out this week with all these changes, and
tested against the latest dt_bindings_check.

quoted

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

$ref: "dsa.yaml#"

is not expressed as:

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

?

No. Either way behaves the same. We generally only use 'allOf' when 
there might be more than 1 entry. That is mostly just at the top-level.

Rob