[PATCH v1 net-next 3/7] dt-bindings: net: dsa: qca8k: utilize shared dsa.yaml

[Colin Foster]

Hi Rob and Vladimir,

On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 04:25:53AM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> Hi Rob,
> 
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 04:21:14PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 10:03:51PM -0700, Colin Foster wrote:
> > > The dsa.yaml binding contains duplicated bindings for address and size
> > > cells, as well as the reference to dsa-port.yaml. Instead of duplicating
> > > this information, remove the reference to dsa-port.yaml and include the
> > > full reference to dsa.yaml.
> > 
> > I don't think this works without further restructuring. Essentially, 
> > 'unevaluatedProperties' on works on a single level. So every level has 
> > to define all properties at that level either directly in 
> > properties/patternProperties or within a $ref.
> > 
> > See how graph.yaml is structured and referenced for an example how this 
> > has to work.
> > 
> > > @@ -104,8 +98,6 @@ patternProperties:
> > >                SGMII on the QCA8337, it is advised to set this unless a communication
> > >                issue is observed.
> > >  
> > > -        unevaluatedProperties: false
> > > -
> > 
> > Dropping this means any undefined properties in port nodes won't be an 
> > error. Once I fix all the issues related to these missing, there will be 
> > a meta-schema checking for this (this could be one I fixed already).
> 
> I may be misreading, but here, "unevaluatedProperties: false" from dsa.yaml
> (under patternProperties: "^(ethernet-)?port@[0-9]+$":) is on the same
> level as the "unevaluatedProperties: false" that Colin is deleting.
> 
> In fact, I believe that it is precisely due to the "unevaluatedProperties: false"
> from dsa.yaml that this is causing a failure now:
> 
> net/dsa/qca8k.example.dtb: switch at 10: ports:port at 6: Unevaluated properties are not allowed ('qca,sgmii-rxclk-falling-edge' was unexpected)
> 
> Could you please explain why is the 'qca,sgmii-rxclk-falling-edge'
> property not evaluated from the perspective of dsa.yaml in the example?
> It's a head scratcher to me.
> 
> May it have something to do with the fact that Colin's addition:
> 
> $ref: "dsa.yaml#"
> 
> is not expressed as:
> 
> allOf:
>   - $ref: "dsa.yaml#"
> 
> ?

Looking into documentation (I promise I did some reading / research to
try to get a stronger understanding of the documentation yaml) I came
across the history of ethernet-controller.yaml which suggests to me that
the pattern:

allOf:
  - $ref: 

is frowned upon
commit 3d21a4609335: ("dt-bindings: Remove cases of 'allOf' containing a
'$ref'")

I do have a knack for misinterpreting data, but I read that as:
allOf:
  - $ref:
shouldn't be used unless there's more than one list entry.


All that aside, I did upgrade from 2022.5 to 2022.9 just now and do see
these dtschema errors now. I'll be sure to use this before resubmitting.


> 
> If yes, can you explain exactly what is the difference with respect to
> unevaluatedProperties?
> 
> > >  oneOf:
> > >    - required:
> > >        - ports
> > > @@ -116,7 +108,7 @@ required:
> > >    - compatible
> > >    - reg
> > >  
> > > -additionalProperties: true
> > 
> > This should certainly be changed though. We should only have 'true' for 
> > incomplete collections of properties. IOW, for common bindings.

That makes a lot of sense - and helps me understand why I had so much
trouble understanding why it originally was "additionalProperties: true"


I'll obviously take another look at this. The nxp,sja1105.yaml seemed to
be most akin to what the qca8k.yaml needed to be - that is "take
dsa.yaml and add a couple extra properties to the ports nodes". But
there's always subleties.


> > 
> > > +unevaluatedProperties: false