Re: [RFT PATCH 5/5] dt-bindings: drm: bridge: adi,adv7511.txt: convert to yaml

[Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>]

On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 5:57 AM Laurent Pinchart
<laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 10:23:32AM +0200, Ricardo Cañuelo wrote:
> > Hi Geert,
> >
> > Thanks for reviewing the patches. Some comments below,
> >
> > On mié 06-05-2020 09:44:19, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > Can't you avoid the need for patches
> > > [RFT PATCH 1/5] arm64: dts: draak: Reorder hdmi-encoder@39 reg and
> > > reg-names properties
> > > [RFT PATCH 2/5] ARM: dts: wheat: reorder reg and reg-names properties
> > > in hdmi bridges
> > >
> > > by using
> > >
> > >     items:
> > >       enum:
> > >         - main
> > >         - edid
> > >         - cec
> > >         - packet
> > >
> > > instead?
> >
> > Not really, because that defines a scalar property that can take any of
> > those values (if I'm not mistaken), and the core schema enforces that
> > reg-names must be an array.

No, 'items' as a schema rather than a list applies to every element in an array.

> >
> > I think the closest I can get to what you mean would be something like
> > this:
> >
> >     items:
> >       - enum:
> >         - main
> >         - edid
> >         - cec
> >         - packet
> >       - enum:
> >         - main
> >         - edid
> >         - cec
> >         - packet
> >       - enum:
> >         - main
> >         - edid
> >         - cec
> >         - packet
> >       - enum:
> >         - main
> >         - edid
> >         - cec
> >         - packet
> >
> > But then that wouldn't prevent anyone from defining duplicate reg-names
> > (eg. "main", "cec", edid", "cec"), which is even worse IMO.
>
> The direction DT bindings are taking is to enfore a particular order. It
> will cause DT validation errors for old device trees, but it won't break
> backward compatibility as the order won't be enforced at runtime, so I
> think that's fine. Tidying up the existing DT sources to use a
> consistent order seems best to me.

Yes.

It's not a new direction though. The order was always supposed to be
defined, it's just enforceable now.

Rob