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 10:49:38 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190403084938.nk5po4w7ljy5bniw@flea> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAL_Jsq+bivuKJ107tiQDb9EN2S+AyK89+CzfcofioXcqGLLqjA@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1760 bytes --]

On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 03:33:42AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Yeah, I need to go look at that. Skipping disabled nodes shouldn't be
> too hard to do within the tool. This came up before I think and I've
> resisted because I don't want to skip validating at least what is
> there. Maybe the better solution would be to drop 'required' from
> schema when validating disabled nodes. (At least, I think just
> 'required' is the problem?)

I thought about something along those lines too, since indeed the only
thing that causes troube is required.

> The complication would be we'd need 2 sets of schemas and select the
> right one for each node.

You mean two instances of the schema in the tool, right? Not two
schema files? Do you expect any drawback to that (like
performance-wise maybe, if we have more schemas with more complicated
select patterns)?

> Another way to implement it would be just to filter out the warning
> messages.

That would work too I guess :)

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