Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] dt-bindings: mtd: sunxi-nand: Add YAML schemas

From: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@bootlin.com>
To: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org>,
	Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@collabora.com>,
	MTD Maling List <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>,
	Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>,
	Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>,
	"moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] dt-bindings: mtd: sunxi-nand: Add YAML schemas
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2019 09:44:18 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190403074418.by3cmvtmdcbovyw5@flea> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAL_JsqLrdFAhdbjVi0ZoCOM6ajEOdQeLpkSKBsZ90X+UvfkLmA@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2700 bytes --]

On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 08:25:59PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 9:54 AM Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@bootlin.com> wrote:
> >
> > Switch the DT binding to a YAML schema to enable the DT validation.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@bootlin.com>
> >
> > ---
> >
> > Changes from v1
> >   - Added controller constraints to the generic options
> > ---
> >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/allwinner,sun4i-a10-nand.yaml | 96 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/sunxi-nand.txt                | 48 +------------------------------------
> >  2 files changed, 96 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-)
> >  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/allwinner,sun4i-a10-nand.yaml
> >  delete mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/sunxi-nand.txt
>
> Same 'a-f' comment here, but otherwise,
>
> Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
>
> And thanks for being an early adopter. Let me know if you have any
> feedback on the schema or pain points.

My main feedback is that it's awesome :)

We (sunxi) have an awful lot of DT in the tree, and I made schemas for
most of the bindings we have now. It allowed us to find a huge (or at
least way more than what I was expecting) number of issues in our DTs,
like inconsistent node naming, typos, etc., and also that our bindings
were not updated as they should have.

The following patches are a direct result from that, and I expect to
find more.
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2019-March/640978.html

On the pain point side, I guess the main one is that most of the time
it's not really clear to me how I should express a particular set of
constraints. You've been really helpful to deal with that one, and I
guess it also stems from the fact that there's not a lot of examples
in the tree right now. I expect it to go away the more schemas we
have.

The other one that might be more problematic is that it also tries to
validate nodes that are not enabled. For in-SoC components that don't
rely on anything external, it's fine, however, for components that
would require something that is connected on the board (like a
regulator, a phy, a GPIO, whatever), then we can't have all the
required resources in the DTSI, and boards that don't use that
component (and keep it disabled) will emit warning that this
particular property is missing.

I've tried to look into it but couldn't find an easy fix for that in
the tooling, so I've opened a github issue for this. Let me know if
it's not appropriate.

Maxime

--
Maxime Ripard, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 176 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel