Re: [PATCH v3 1/7] dt-bindings: fuse: Move renesas,rcar-{efuse,otp} to nvmem

[Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>]

Hi Krzysztof,

On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 10:55 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote:
> On 28/08/2024 22:10, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 1:11 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 09:37:36AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 6:24 PM Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 03:38:06PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >>>>> The R-Car E-FUSE blocks can be modelled better using the nvmem
> >>>>> framework.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Replace the R-Car V3U example by an R-Car S4-8 ES1.2 example, to show
> >>>>> the definition of nvmem cells.  While at it, drop unneeded labels from
> >>>>> the examples, and fix indentation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Add an entry to the MAINTAINERS file.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Reported-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>> v3:
> >>>>>   - New.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I would expect that the calib@144 node needs:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>     #nvmem-cell-cells = <0>;
>
> So this is for mac-base...

No, mac-base is not involved.

> >>>>> but after adding that, "make dt_binding_check" starts complaining:

[...]

> >> And if you test your schema or DTS with all nvmem (so also layouts)
> >> schemas?
> >>
> >> Apparently fixed-layout schema was not applied.
> >
> > With today's dt-schema:

[...]

> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/renesas,rcar-efuse.example.dtb:
> > nvmem-layout: calib@144: Unevaluated properties are not allowed
> > ('#nvmem-cell-cells' was unexpected)
> >         from schema $id:
> > http://devicetree.org/schemas/nvmem/layouts/fixed-layout.yaml#
> >
> > According to the last line, fixed-layout.yaml is applied.
> > Am I missing something?
>
> I cannot reproduce it. Neither on 2024.6.dev5+g0e44e14b7eb4 nor on
> todays 2024.6.dev16+gc51125d571ca (which is actually from 15th of Aug).
>
> But maybe we talk about modified patch, but then which exactly?

Yes, you have to add "#nvmem-cell-cells = <0>;" to the calib@144 node
after applying my series (or at least the bindings patch).

I can reproduce it on Linux v6.11-rc5 and dt-schema
v2024.05-16-gc51125d571cac959 by modifying the fixed-layout example:

--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/layouts/fixed-layout.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/layouts/fixed-layout.yaml
@@ -58,5 +58,6 @@ examples:

         calibration@4000 {
             reg = <0x4000 0x100>;
+            #nvmem-cell-cells = <0>;
         };
     };

Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/layouts/fixed-layout.example.dtb:
nvmem-layout: calibration@4000: Unevaluated properties are not allowed
('#nvmem-cell-cells' was unexpected)
        from schema $id:
http://devicetree.org/schemas/nvmem/layouts/fixed-layout.yaml#

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds