From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10633C4725A for ; Wed, 6 May 2020 08:04:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC3E120735 for ; Wed, 6 May 2020 08:04:10 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ti.com header.i=@ti.com header.b="SH5rp8H6" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728290AbgEFIB1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 May 2020 04:01:27 -0400 Received: from lelv0142.ext.ti.com ([198.47.23.249]:39940 "EHLO lelv0142.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728280AbgEFIB1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 May 2020 04:01:27 -0400 Received: from fllv0034.itg.ti.com ([10.64.40.246]) by lelv0142.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 04681AAp085965; Wed, 6 May 2020 03:01:10 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1588752070; bh=fBYH/OX0qOF7iUC5jWzL2Vp1Y/k89aTRhZ5X4WhtbVQ=; h=Subject:To:References:From:CC:Date:In-Reply-To; b=SH5rp8H6na/BZ2COWCJ33YYXkVuSiZG9LAsdvD2sQ4mA6+y9W05Z7J64OJkPjkapV 5xslt58ms22BNBr+0RKUUddBHlzz9nCamW3YypoxOLZGzZ2AcwXIT/nyHkrkQVWAgQ I6UGuipTdXpM/rUgxLt6xdVtepEkXb2wEE44O/wQ= Received: from DFLE107.ent.ti.com (dfle107.ent.ti.com [10.64.6.28]) by fllv0034.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 04681AEP016756 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 6 May 2020 03:01:10 -0500 Received: from DFLE114.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.35) by DFLE107.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.28) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1979.3; Wed, 6 May 2020 03:01:09 -0500 Received: from lelv0326.itg.ti.com (10.180.67.84) by DFLE114.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1979.3 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 6 May 2020 03:01:10 -0500 Received: from [192.168.2.6] (ileax41-snat.itg.ti.com [10.172.224.153]) by lelv0326.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 046818LP058281; Wed, 6 May 2020 03:01:08 -0500 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] dt-bindings: display: ti,tfp410.txt: convert to yaml To: =?UTF-8?Q?Ricardo_Ca=c3=b1uelo?= References: <20200428092048.14939-1-ricardo.canuelo@collabora.com> <3e377c73-25a3-a7b3-0604-41c54d70039e@ti.com> <20200506072155.6dmj35zdnr3to5ib@rcn-XPS-13-9360> From: Tomi Valkeinen CC: , Laurent Pinchart , , , , , Message-ID: <1cee742a-c16a-fb32-5caa-c6ac71689ab9@ti.com> Date: Wed, 6 May 2020 11:01:07 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200506072155.6dmj35zdnr3to5ib@rcn-XPS-13-9360> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e1e8a2fd-e40a-4ac6-ac9b-f7e9cc9ee180 Sender: devicetree-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Hi Ricardo, On 06/05/2020 10:21, Ricardo Cañuelo wrote: > Hi Tomi, thanks for reviewing the patch. > > On mar 28-04-2020 12:49:28, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: >> I don't quite understand this. We cannot have negative numbers in dts files? >> Or we can, but dt_binding_check doesn't handle them correctly? Or that int32 >> is not supported in yaml bindings? > > AFAICT, you can have negative numbers in dts files (see [1] and [2]) and This is also my understanding after some googling. And there's even of_property_read_s32() in the kernel. > the DT schema certainly supports signed integers, but dt_binding_check > seems to interpret all cells as unsigned 32bit integers because that's > what they are, really. In kernel code this is not a problem because you Well, this is in the nitpick category, and maybe not even relevant, but I don't think that's correct. They're just bits. Some pieces of SW happen to use u32 containers to store the bits. But what the bits mean is not related to the container. > can cast the value back to a signed int before you run your own sanity > checks on them. Doesn't all this just point to a bug or missing feature in dt_binding_check? That's not a reason to change the ABI. Tomi -- Texas Instruments Finland Oy, Porkkalankatu 22, 00180 Helsinki. Y-tunnus/Business ID: 0615521-4. Kotipaikka/Domicile: Helsinki