Re: [PATCH 1/4] dt-bindings: usb: typec: add bindings for stm32g0 controller

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 28/06/2022 19:01, Fabrice Gasnier wrote:

>>>>> +  connector:
>>>>> +    type: object> +    allOf:
>>>>> +      - $ref: ../connector/usb-connector.yaml#
>>>>
>>>> Full path, so /schemas/connector/...
>>>>
>>>> unevaluatedProperties: false
> 
> Hi Krzysztof,
> 
> I Just figured out usb-connector schema has "additionalProperties:
> true". Adding "unevaluatedProperties: false" here seem to be useless.
> At least at my end, this make any dummy property added in the example
> below to be validated without error by the schema.

No, it's expected. The common schema allows additional properties. You
specific device schema (including common) should not allow anything more
and this is expressed like you mentioned.

However depending on the version of dtschema, the
unevaluatedProperties:false might still be not implemented. AFAIK, Rob
added it quite recently.

> 
> Should this be updated in usb-connector.yaml instead ?

No

> 
> Shall I omit it here in the end ?

You need to add here unevaluatedProperties: false (on the level of this
$ref)

> 
>>>
>>> ack,
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> +  firmware-name:
>>>>> +    description: |
>>>>> +      Should contain the name of the default firmware image
>>>>> +      file located on the firmware search path
>>>>> +
>>>>> +  wakeup-source: true
>>>>> +  power-domains: true
>>>>
>>>> maxItems
>>>
>>> Do you mean maxItems regarding the "power-domains" property ?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>> This will depend on the user platform, where it's used as an I2C device.
>>> So I'm not sure this can / should be specified here.
>>> Could please you clarify ?
>>
>> Then maybe this property is not valid here. Power domains usually are
>> used for blocks of a SoC, having common power source and power gating.
>> In your case it looks much more like a regulator supply.
> 
> This property is used in our implementation to refer to SOC PM domain
> for GPIO that is used to wakeup the system. This isn't only a regulator,
> this PM domain serves various IPs such as I2C, GPIO, UART... (it manages
> regulator and clocks used in low power).
> 
> I can limit to 1 item if this is fine for you ?
> 
> e.g. maxItems: 1

Yes, it's good (assuming it is true :) ).

> 
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> +required:
>>>>> +  - compatible
>>>>> +  - reg
>>>>> +  - interrupts
>>>>> +
>>>>> +additionalProperties: false
>>>>> +
>>>>> +examples:
>>>>> +  - |
>>>>> +    #include <dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/irq.h>
>>>>> +    i2c5 {
>>>>
>>>> Just "i2c"
>>>
>>> ack,
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> +      #address-cells = <1>;
>>>>> +      #size-cells = <0>;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +      stm32g0@53 {
>>>>
>>>> Generic node name describing class of the device.
>>>
>>>
>>> I wasn't aware of generic node name for an I2C device (not talking of
>>> the controller). I may have missed it.
>>>
>>> Could you please clarify ?
>>
>> The class of a device is not a I2C device. I2C is just a bus. For
>> example the generic name for Power Management IC connected over I2C
>> (quite common case) is "pmic".
>>
>> For USB HCD controllers the generic name is "usb". For USB
>> ports/connectors this is "connector". So what is your hardware?
>> "interface" is a bit too unspecific to figure it out.
> 
> Thanks, I better understand your point now.
> 
> A common definition for the hardware here could be "USB Type-C PD
> controller". I'll improve this schema title by the way.
> 
> I had a quick look in various .dts files. I could find mainly:
> - typec-portc@hh
> - usb-typec@hh
> - typec@hh
> 
> Not sure if this has already been discussed in other reviews, it lacks
> the "controller" idea in the naming IMHO.
> Perhaps something like "typec-pd-controller" or
> "usb-typec-pd-controller" could be used here ?
> 
> Otherwise, I could adopt the shortest "typec" name if it's fine for you ?

typec sounds good.

> 
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> +        compatible = "st,stm32g0-typec";
>>>>> +        reg = <0x53>;
>>>>> +        /* Alert pin on GPIO PE12 */
>>>>> +        interrupts = <12 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING>;
>>>>> +        interrupt-parent = <&gpioe>;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +        /* Example with one type-C connector */
>>>>> +        connector {
>>>>> +          compatible = "usb-c-connector";
>>>>> +          label = "USB-C";
>>>>> +
>>>>> +          port {
>>>>
>>>> This does not look like proper schema of connector.yaml.
>>>
>>> This refers to graph.yaml [1], where similar example is seen [2].
>>>
>>> https://github.com/devicetree-org/dt-schema/blob/main/dtschema/schemas/graph.yaml#L79
>>>
>>> https://github.com/devicetree-org/dt-schema/blob/main/dtschema/schemas/graph.yaml#L207
>>
>> Just look at the usb-conector schema. It's different. You miss ports.
>> Maybe other properties as well.
> 
> 
> (I may miss something, and got confused around port/ports earlier)
> The graph properties seems to allow both the 'port' and 'ports' syntax
> thanks to the graph definition.
> The "port" syntax is also used in other typec controller schemas.
> 
> There's only one port in this example. Of course other example could use
> two or more ports (like for USB HS / SS / aux) which would require using
> the "ports" node (with port@0/1/2 childs).
> 
> I can adopt the "ports" node if you prefer. As I see it just doesn't
> bring much in the current example (The only drawback is this adds one
> indentation/node level w.r.t. the bellow example, so not a big deal).

The graph schema allows, but you include here usb-connector schema which
requires to put it under "ports". You should not use it differently, so
I expect here "ports" property, even with one port.

Best regards,
Krzysztof