Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: set additionalProperties to true

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On 07/04/2024 12:04, Peng Fan wrote:
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: set
>> additionalProperties to true
>>
>> On 07/04/2024 02:37, Peng Fan wrote:
>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: set
>>>> additionalProperties to true
>>>>
>>>> On 05/04/2024 14:39, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote:
>>>>> From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> When adding vendor extension protocols, there is dt-schema warning:
>>>>> "
>>>>> imx,scmi.example.dtb: scmi: 'protocol@81', 'protocol@84' do not
>>>>> match any of the regexes: 'pinctrl-[0-9]+'
>>>>> "
>>>>>
>>>>> Set additionalProperties to true to address the issue.
>>>>
>>>> I do not see anything addressed here, except making the binding
>>>> accepting anything anywhere...
>>>
>>> I not wanna add vendor protocols in arm,scmi.yaml, so will introduce a
>>> new yaml imx.scmi.yaml which add i.MX SCMI protocol extension.
>>>
>>> With additionalProperties set to false, I not know how, please suggest.
>>
>> First of all, you cannot affect negatively existing devices (their
>> bindings) and your patch does exactly that. This should make you thing what
>> is the correct approach...
>>
>> Rob gave you the comment about missing compatible - you still did not
>> address that.
> 
> I added the compatible in patch 2/6 in the examples "compatible = "arm,scmi";"

So you claim that your vendor extensions are the same or fully
compatible with arm,scmi and you add nothing... Are your
extensions/protocol valid for arm,scmi? If yes, why is this in separate
binding. If no, why you use someone else's compatible?

Maybe your binding is correct, feel free to convince me (and read first
writing bindings).

Best regards,
Krzysztof