Re: [PATCH 5/5] dt-bindings: iio: adc: xilinx-xadc: convert to YAML format

[David Lechner <dlechner@baylibre.com>]

On 3/19/26 11:49 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 19/03/2026 16:49, Sai Krishna Potthuri wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>> +$defs:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why this is a def, not used directly? I see only one usage of this def.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am getting the below error if i define the patternProperties directly.
>>>>>>>> Seems like complex vendor peroperties should be referenced via $ref.
>>>>>>>> Please suggest if there is any better way to deal this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is hard to say without seeing the new version of what you wrote.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In v1 series, i created $def and referenced this in xlnx,channels to avoid the error that i mentioned.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is the code below the code that causes the error?
>>>>
>>>> No, the below code is not creating the error but Krzysztof asked the question on this code,
>>>> "Why this is a def, not used directly? I see only one usage of this def."
>>>>
>>>> I am saying if i don't use the def and use it directly i am seeing the error that i mentioned. So, asking is there any better way to handle this case other than using def.
>>>
>>> If you could show us the actual code that is causing the error, then
>>> we could perhaps spot a mistake or suggest an alternative.
> 
> Thanks David, I am surprised how many emails we need to exchange just to
> see the actual code.
> 
>>
>> Thanks. Here is the code that is causing the error
>> ("properties:xlnx,channels:type: 'boolean' was expected").
>>
>> xlnx,channels:
> 
> Device nodes do not have any prefixes. Just take a look at any DTS or
> any binding.
> 
> Probably that's the reason, because nothing in this code looks
> particularly odd. Anyway, please do not come with odd syntax in the code
> without any explanation, just to make it passing the tests, so for
> example ignoring the checks we have.
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof

Since this is converting existing 12-years-old .txt bindings, I don't
think we can "fix" the bindings by dropping the vendor prefix.

I think in cases like this, Rob will usually fix the tooling to ignore
this as a special case. (I had a similar case last year on a conversion
I did.)

So I think the right thing to do is to not use $def and explain in the
commit message why the error is expected (we can't change existing bindings
even though they are "wrong" by current standards).

If this was a new binding, we should be using the common adc.yaml for IIO
ADCs which already has patterProperties for channels and a bipolar flag.
But we are stuck with this vendor-prefixed one here.