Re: [PATCH 07/10] dt-bindings: rng: add st,rng-lock-conf

Krzysztof Kozlowski
2023-09-15T10:33:31Z

On 15/09/2023 11:28, Gatien CHEVALLIER wrote:
> Hello Rob,
>
> On 9/11/23 17:09, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 08, 2023 at 06:51:17PM +0200, Gatien Chevallier wrote:
>>> If st,rng-lock-conf is set, the RNG configuration in RNG_CR, RNG_HTCR
>>> and RNG_NSCR will be locked. It is supported starting from the RNG
>>> version present in the STM32MP13
>>
>> This should be squashed into the prior binding patch.
>>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Gatien Chevallier <gatien.chevallier@foss.st.com>
>>> ---
>>> .../devicetree/bindings/rng/st,stm32-rng.yaml | 14 ++++++++++++++
>>> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rng/st,stm32-rng.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rng/st,stm32-rng.yaml
>>> index 59abdc85a9fb..0055f14a8e3f 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rng/st,stm32-rng.yaml
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rng/st,stm32-rng.yaml
>>> @@ -37,6 +37,20 @@ required:
>>> - reg
>>> - clocks
>>>
>>> +allOf:
>>> + - if:
>>> + properties:
>>> + compatible:
>>> + contains:
>>> + enum:
>>> + - st,stm32mp13-rng
>>> + then:
>>> + properties:
>>> + st,rng-lock-conf:
>>> + type: boolean
>>> + description: If set, the RNG configuration in RNG_CR, RNG_HTCR and
>>> + RNG_NSCR will be locked.
>>
>> Define the property at the top-level and then restrict its presence in
>> a if/then schema.
>>
>
> Can you please point me to an example of such case. I can't find a way
> to define at the top-level the property then restrict it to specific
> compatibles.

You can check my slides from the talks about not reaching 10 iterations
of bindings patches.

Or open example-schema (this should be your starting point):
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.19/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/example-schema.yaml#L212

Also:
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.4-rc7/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/qcom,ipa.yaml#L174
>
> Else I'd change
> additionalProperties :false to
> unevaluatedProperties: false
>
> so the definition of the property is seen.

No, why? Definition is there when you move it to the top as asked.

Best regards,
Krzysztof