Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: display: renesas,du: narrow interrupts and resets per variants

[Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>]

Hi Krzysztof,

On Sun, Aug 18, 2024 at 08:48:54PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 18/08/2024 19:51, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 18, 2024 at 07:44:22PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On 18/08/2024 19:41, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Aug 18, 2024 at 07:30:02PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >>>> Each variable-length property like interrupts or resets must have fixed
> >>>> constraints on number of items for given variant in binding.  The
> >>>> clauses in "if:then:" block should define both limits: upper and lower.
> >>>
> >>> I thought that, when only one of minItems or maxItems was specified, the
> >>> other automatically defaulted to the same value. I'm pretty sure I
> >>> recall Rob asking me to drop one of the two in some bindings. Has the
> >>> rule changes ? Is it documented somewhere ?
> >>
> >> New dtschema changed it and, even if previous behavior is restored, the
> >> size in if:then: always had to be constrained. You could have skipped
> >> one side of limit if it was equal to outer/top-level limit, e.g:
> >>
> >> properties:
> >>   clocks:
> >>     minItems: 1
> >>     maxItems: 2
> >>
> >>
> >> if:then:properties:
> >>   clocks:
> >>     minItems: 2
> > 
> > Where can I find a description of the behaviour of the new dtschema
> > (hopefully with some documentation) ?
> 
> No clue, but I feel there is some core concept missing. Your earlier
> statement:
> "I thought that, when only one of minItems or maxItems was specified, the"
> 
> was never logically correct for the "if:then", except for the case I
> mentioned above. That's why all schema used as examples had it explicit:
> 
> My talk from 2022, page 30:
> https://static.sched.com/hosted_files/osseu2022/bd/How%20to%20Get%20Your%20DT%20Schema%20Bindings%20Accepted%20in%20Less%20than%2010%20Iterations%20-%20Krzysztof%20Kozlowski%2C%20Linaro.pdf?_gl=1*kmzqmt*_gcl_au*MTU2MzQ1MjY0Mi4xNzIxNzE0NDc1
> all constraints defined,.
> 
> My talk from 2023, page 34:
> https://static.sched.com/hosted_files/eoss2023/a8/How%20to%20Get%20Your%20DT%20Schema%20Bindings%20Accepted%20in%20Less%20than%2010%20Iterations%20-%20Krzysztof%20Kozlowski%2C%20Linaro%20-%20ELCE%202023.pdf?_gl=1*1jgx6d3*_gcl_au*MTU2MzQ1MjY0Mi4xNzIxNzE0NDc1
> 
> Recently, I started using other example as "useful reference":
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.8/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/qcom,ufs.yaml#L132
> 
> That's nothing. All three above reference examples I keep giving are
> already there and repeated in emails all the time.
> 
> So aren't you confusing the entire "skip one limit" for top-level
> properties? This patch is not about it all and dtschema did not change.

There must have been a misunderstanding indeed, I interpreted "New
dtschema changed it" as meaning there were now new rules. Is that
incorrect ?

If you don't mind clarifying, what is the current recommendation to
indicate that a property has a fixed number of items ? Which of the
following three options is preferred ?

properties:
  clocks:
    minItems: 2

properties:
  clocks:
    maxItems: 2

properties:
  clocks:
    minItems: 2
    maxItems: 2

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart