Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] dt-bindings: net: dsa: mediatek,mt7530: define port binding per compatible

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 20/08/2022 10:34, Arınç ÜNAL wrote:
> On 19.08.2022 15:43, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 13/08/2022 18:44, Arınç ÜNAL wrote:
>>> Define DSA port binding under each compatible device as each device
>>> requires different values for certain properties.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Arınç ÜNAL <arinc.unal@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>   .../bindings/net/dsa/mediatek,mt7530.yaml     | 116 +++++++++++++-----
>>>   1 file changed, 87 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/mediatek,mt7530.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/mediatek,mt7530.yaml
>>> index cc87f48d4d07..ff51a2f6875f 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/mediatek,mt7530.yaml
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/mediatek,mt7530.yaml
>>> @@ -130,35 +130,6 @@ properties:
>>>         ethsys.
>>>       maxItems: 1
>>>   
>>> -patternProperties:
>>> -  "^(ethernet-)?ports$":
>>> -    type: object
>>> -
>>> -    patternProperties:
>>> -      "^(ethernet-)?port@[0-9]+$":
>>> -        type: object
>>> -        description: Ethernet switch ports
>>> -
>>
>> my comments from v1 apply here
>>
>> None of the reasons you said force you to define properties in some
>> allOf:if:then subblock. These force you to constrain the properties in
>> allOf:if:then, but not define.
>>
>>
>>> I can split patternProperties to two sections, but I can't directly
>>> define the reg property like you put above.
>>
>> Of course you can and original bindings were doing it.
>>
>> Let me ask specific questions (yes, no):
>> 1. Are ethernet-ports and ethernet-port present in each variant?
>> 2. Is dsa-port.yaml applicable to each variant? (looks like that - three
>> compatibles, three all:if:then)
>> 3. If reg appearing in each variant?
>> 4. If above is true, if reg is maximum one item in each variant?
> 
> All yes.
> 
>>
>> Looking at your patch, I think answer is 4x yes, which means you can
>> define them in one place and constrain in allOf:if:then, just like all
>> other schemas, because this one is not different.
> 
> If I understand correctly, I do this already with v3. Properties are 
> defined under the constructed node. Accepted values for properties are 
> constrained under if:then.

v4 doesn't do it. You removed there patternProperties - again.


Best regards,
Krzysztof