From: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com>
To: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: Restrict protocol child node properties
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2023 13:43:48 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y9EyB+OO7MyGy20w@e120937-lin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230124222023.316089-1-robh@kernel.org>
On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 04:20:23PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> The SCMI protocol child nodes are missing any constraints on unknown
> properties. Specifically, either 'unevaluatedProperties' or
> 'additionalProperties' is needed. The current structure with a regex
> match for all child nodes doesn't work for this purpose, so let's move
> the common properties '$defs' entry which each specific protocol node
> can reference and set 'unevaluatedProperties: false'.
>
Hi Rob,
> Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
> ---
> .../bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml | 43 ++++++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml
> index 176796931a22..2f7c51c75e85 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml
> @@ -100,7 +100,9 @@ properties:
> Channel specifier required when using OP-TEE transport.
>
> protocol@11:
> - type: object
> + $ref: '#/$defs/protocol-node'
> + unevaluatedProperties: false
> +
> properties:
> reg:
> const: 0x11
> @@ -112,7 +114,9 @@ properties:
> - '#power-domain-cells'
>
> protocol@13:
> - type: object
> + $ref: '#/$defs/protocol-node'
> + unevaluatedProperties: false
> +
> properties:
> reg:
> const: 0x13
> @@ -124,7 +128,9 @@ properties:
> - '#clock-cells'
>
> protocol@14:
> - type: object
> + $ref: '#/$defs/protocol-node'
> + unevaluatedProperties: false
> +
> properties:
> reg:
> const: 0x14
> @@ -136,7 +142,9 @@ properties:
> - '#clock-cells'
>
> protocol@15:
> - type: object
> + $ref: '#/$defs/protocol-node'
> + unevaluatedProperties: false
> +
> properties:
> reg:
> const: 0x15
> @@ -148,7 +156,9 @@ properties:
> - '#thermal-sensor-cells'
>
> protocol@16:
> - type: object
> + $ref: '#/$defs/protocol-node'
> + unevaluatedProperties: false
> +
> properties:
> reg:
> const: 0x16
> @@ -160,20 +170,31 @@ properties:
> - '#reset-cells'
>
> protocol@17:
> - type: object
> + $ref: '#/$defs/protocol-node'
> + unevaluatedProperties: false
> +
> properties:
> reg:
> const: 0x17
>
> regulators:
> type: object
> + additionalProperties: false
> description:
> The list of all regulators provided by this SCMI controller.
>
> + properties:
> + '#address-cells':
> + const: 1
> +
> + '#size-cells':
> + const: 0
> +
> patternProperties:
> - '^regulators@[0-9a-f]+$':
> + '^regulator@[0-9a-f]+$':
> type: object
> $ref: "../regulator/regulator.yaml#"
> + unevaluatedProperties: false
>
> properties:
> reg:
> @@ -184,15 +205,17 @@ properties:
> - reg
>
> protocol@18:
> - type: object
> + $ref: '#/$defs/protocol-node'
> + unevaluatedProperties: false
> +
> properties:
> reg:
> const: 0x18
>
> additionalProperties: false
>
> -patternProperties:
> - '^protocol@[0-9a-f]+$':
> +$defs:
> + protocol-node:
> type: object
> description:
so now that the catch-all protocol@ patternProperty is gone in favour
of the 'protocol-node' definition and $refs, does that mean that any
current and future SCMI officially published protocol <N> has to be
added to the above explicit protocol list, even though it does not
have any special additional required property beside reg ?
(like protocol@18 above...)
As an example SystemPower protocol@12 is not listed above too and it
has nothing more than a reg=0x12 prop (liek 0x18), but before this patch
was 'covered' by the patternProperty (so Krzysztof shot down, rightly,
my recent attempt to add a distinct protocol@12 def), but now it does not
seem anymore the case...so will we need to add an explicit protocol node
for any future protocol addition ? (SCMI is extensible up to 255
protos..)
Thanks,
Cristian
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com>
To: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: Restrict protocol child node properties
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2023 13:43:48 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y9EyB+OO7MyGy20w@e120937-lin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230124222023.316089-1-robh@kernel.org>
On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 04:20:23PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> The SCMI protocol child nodes are missing any constraints on unknown
> properties. Specifically, either 'unevaluatedProperties' or
> 'additionalProperties' is needed. The current structure with a regex
> match for all child nodes doesn't work for this purpose, so let's move
> the common properties '$defs' entry which each specific protocol node
> can reference and set 'unevaluatedProperties: false'.
>
Hi Rob,
> Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
> ---
> .../bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml | 43 ++++++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml
> index 176796931a22..2f7c51c75e85 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml
> @@ -100,7 +100,9 @@ properties:
> Channel specifier required when using OP-TEE transport.
>
> protocol@11:
> - type: object
> + $ref: '#/$defs/protocol-node'
> + unevaluatedProperties: false
> +
> properties:
> reg:
> const: 0x11
> @@ -112,7 +114,9 @@ properties:
> - '#power-domain-cells'
>
> protocol@13:
> - type: object
> + $ref: '#/$defs/protocol-node'
> + unevaluatedProperties: false
> +
> properties:
> reg:
> const: 0x13
> @@ -124,7 +128,9 @@ properties:
> - '#clock-cells'
>
> protocol@14:
> - type: object
> + $ref: '#/$defs/protocol-node'
> + unevaluatedProperties: false
> +
> properties:
> reg:
> const: 0x14
> @@ -136,7 +142,9 @@ properties:
> - '#clock-cells'
>
> protocol@15:
> - type: object
> + $ref: '#/$defs/protocol-node'
> + unevaluatedProperties: false
> +
> properties:
> reg:
> const: 0x15
> @@ -148,7 +156,9 @@ properties:
> - '#thermal-sensor-cells'
>
> protocol@16:
> - type: object
> + $ref: '#/$defs/protocol-node'
> + unevaluatedProperties: false
> +
> properties:
> reg:
> const: 0x16
> @@ -160,20 +170,31 @@ properties:
> - '#reset-cells'
>
> protocol@17:
> - type: object
> + $ref: '#/$defs/protocol-node'
> + unevaluatedProperties: false
> +
> properties:
> reg:
> const: 0x17
>
> regulators:
> type: object
> + additionalProperties: false
> description:
> The list of all regulators provided by this SCMI controller.
>
> + properties:
> + '#address-cells':
> + const: 1
> +
> + '#size-cells':
> + const: 0
> +
> patternProperties:
> - '^regulators@[0-9a-f]+$':
> + '^regulator@[0-9a-f]+$':
> type: object
> $ref: "../regulator/regulator.yaml#"
> + unevaluatedProperties: false
>
> properties:
> reg:
> @@ -184,15 +205,17 @@ properties:
> - reg
>
> protocol@18:
> - type: object
> + $ref: '#/$defs/protocol-node'
> + unevaluatedProperties: false
> +
> properties:
> reg:
> const: 0x18
>
> additionalProperties: false
>
> -patternProperties:
> - '^protocol@[0-9a-f]+$':
> +$defs:
> + protocol-node:
> type: object
> description:
so now that the catch-all protocol@ patternProperty is gone in favour
of the 'protocol-node' definition and $refs, does that mean that any
current and future SCMI officially published protocol <N> has to be
added to the above explicit protocol list, even though it does not
have any special additional required property beside reg ?
(like protocol@18 above...)
As an example SystemPower protocol@12 is not listed above too and it
has nothing more than a reg=0x12 prop (liek 0x18), but before this patch
was 'covered' by the patternProperty (so Krzysztof shot down, rightly,
my recent attempt to add a distinct protocol@12 def), but now it does not
seem anymore the case...so will we need to add an explicit protocol node
for any future protocol addition ? (SCMI is extensible up to 255
protos..)
Thanks,
Cristian
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-01-25 13:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-01-24 22:20 [PATCH] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: Restrict protocol child node properties Rob Herring
2023-01-24 22:20 ` Rob Herring
2023-01-25 12:42 ` Sudeep Holla
2023-01-25 12:42 ` Sudeep Holla
2023-01-25 13:43 ` Cristian Marussi [this message]
2023-01-25 13:43 ` Cristian Marussi
2023-01-25 14:11 ` Sudeep Holla
2023-01-25 14:11 ` Sudeep Holla
2023-01-25 15:40 ` Cristian Marussi
2023-01-25 15:40 ` Cristian Marussi
2023-01-25 17:30 ` Rob Herring
2023-01-25 17:30 ` Rob Herring
2023-01-26 9:43 ` Cristian Marussi
2023-01-26 9:43 ` Cristian Marussi
2023-01-26 14:46 ` Sudeep Holla
2023-01-26 14:46 ` Sudeep Holla
2023-01-26 15:25 ` Rob Herring
2023-01-26 15:25 ` Rob Herring
2023-01-26 17:04 ` Sudeep Holla
2023-01-26 17:04 ` Sudeep Holla
2023-01-27 18:52 ` Rob Herring
2023-01-27 18:52 ` Rob Herring
2023-02-06 10:47 ` Sudeep Holla
2023-02-06 10:47 ` Sudeep Holla
2023-02-06 17:22 ` Rob Herring
2023-02-06 17:22 ` Rob Herring
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Y9EyB+OO7MyGy20w@e120937-lin \
--to=cristian.marussi@arm.com \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=robh@kernel.org \
--cc=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.