Re: [PATCH 2/5] dt-bindings: mfd: atmel,at91-usart: convert to json-schema

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 19/08/2022 12:25, Sergiu.Moga@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On 18.08.2022 11:38, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 17/08/2022 10:55, Sergiu Moga wrote:
>>> Convert at91 USART DT Binding for Atmel/Microchip SoCs to
>>> json-schema format.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Sergiu Moga <sergiu.moga@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>   .../bindings/mfd/atmel,at91-usart.yaml        | 190 ++++++++++++++++++
>>>   .../devicetree/bindings/mfd/atmel-usart.txt   |  98 ---------
>>>   2 files changed, 190 insertions(+), 98 deletions(-)
>>>   create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/atmel,at91-usart.yaml
>>>   delete mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/atmel-usart.txt
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/atmel,at91-usart.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/atmel,at91-usart.yaml
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 000000000000..cf15d73fa1e8
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/atmel,at91-usart.yaml
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,190 @@
>>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
>>> +# Copyright (C) 2022 Microchip Technology, Inc. and its subsidiaries
>>> +%YAML 1.2
>>> +---
>>> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/mfd/atmel,at91-usart.yaml#
>>> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
>>> +
>>> +title: Atmel Universal Synchronous Asynchronous Receiver/Transmitter (USART)
>>> +
>>> +maintainers:
>>> +  - Richard Genoud <richard.genoud@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> +
>>> +properties:
>>> +  compatible:
>>> +    oneOf:
>> This looks quite different than bindings and you commit msg is saying it
>> is only a conversion. Mention any changes against original bindings.
>>
>>> +      - const: atmel,at91rm9200-usart
>>> +      - const: atmel,at91sam9260-usart
>>> +      - const: microchip,sam9x60-usart
>> That's an enum
>>
>>> +      - items:
>>> +          - const: atmel,at91rm9200-dbgu
>>> +          - const: atmel,at91rm9200-usart
>>> +      - items:
>>> +          - const: atmel,at91sam9260-dbgu
>>> +          - const: atmel,at91sam9260-usart
>>> +      - items:
>>> +          - const: microchip,sam9x60-dbgu
>>> +          - const: microchip,sam9x60-usart
>>> +      - items:
>>> +          - const: microchip,sam9x60-usart
>>> +          - const: atmel,at91sam9260-usart
>> This is not correct - contradicts earlier one.
>>
>>> +      - items:
>>> +          - const: microchip,sam9x60-dbgu
>>> +          - const: microchip,sam9x60-usart
>>> +          - const: atmel,at91sam9260-dbgu
>>> +          - const: atmel,at91sam9260-usart
>> What? You wrote above that microchip,sam9x60-dbgu is compatible only
>> with microchip,sam9x60-usart. Now you write it is also compatible with
>> other ones?
>>
>>> +
>>> +  reg:
>>> +    maxItems: 1
>>> +
>>> +  interrupts:
>>> +    maxItems: 1
>>> +
>>> +  clock-names:
>>> +    contains:
>>> +      const: usart
>> No, this has to be specific/fixed list.
>>
>>> +
>>> +  clocks:
>>> +    minItems: 1
>>> +    maxItems: 2
>> Not really - define the items. One item could be optional, though.
>>
>>> +
>>> +  dmas:
>>> +    items:
>>> +      - description: TX DMA Channel
>>> +      - description: RX DMA Channel
>>> +
>>> +  dma-names:
>>> +    items:
>>> +      - const: tx
>>> +      - const: rx
>>> +
>>> +  atmel,usart-mode:
>>> +    $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32
>>> +    description: |
>> No need for |
>>
>>> +      Must be either 1 for SPI or 0 for USART.
>> Mention the header.
>>
>>> +    enum: [ 0, 1 ]
>>> +
>>> +required:
>>> +  - compatible
>>> +  - reg
>>> +  - interrupts
>>> +  - clock-names
>>> +  - clocks
>>> +
>>> +if:
>> Put it under allOf.
> 
> 
> I missed this in the first read, but what do you mean by under allOf? 
> The only allOf's in this file are under the then:'s.
> 

It means that "if:" is preferred to be under allOf, just like example
schema is showing:
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.19/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/example-schema.yaml

Not some other allOf, which could be many in your bindings. The one
allOf in top-level, just like example schema.


Best regards,
Krzysztof