Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] dt-bindings: mtd: marvell-nand: Convert to YAML DT scheme

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 27/10/2022 09:18, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> Hi Vadym,
> 
>>>>> +patternProperties:
>>>>> +  "^nand@[0-3]$":
>>>>> +    type: object
>>>>> +    properties:
>>>>> +      reg:
>>>>> +        minimum: 0
>>>>> +        maximum: 3
>>>>> +
>>>>> +      nand-rb:
>>>>> +        minimum: 0
>>>>> +        maximum: 1
>>>>> +
>>>>> +      nand-ecc-strength:
>>>>> +        enum: [1, 4, 8]
>>>>> +
>>>>> +      nand-on-flash-bbt: true
>>>>> +
>>>>> +      nand-ecc-mode: true
>>>>> +
>>>>> +      nand-ecc-algo:
>>>>> +        description: |
>>>>> +          This property is essentially useful when not using hardware ECC.
>>>>> +          Howerver, it may be added when using hardware ECC for clarification
>>>>> +          but will be ignored by the driver because ECC mode is chosen depending
>>>>> +          on the page size and the strength required by the NAND chip.
>>>>> +          This value may be overwritten with nand-ecc-strength property.
>>>>> +
>>>>> +      nand-ecc-step-size:
>>>>> +        description: |
>>>>> +          Marvell's NAND flash controller does use fixed strength
>>>>> +          (1-bit for Hamming, 16-bit for BCH), so the actual step size
>>>>> +          will shrink or grow in order to fit the required strength.
>>>>> +          Step sizes are not completely random for all and follow certain
>>>>> +          patterns described in AN-379, "Marvell SoC NFC ECC".
>>>>> +
>>>>> +      label:
>>>>> +        $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/string
>>>>> +
>>>>> +      partitions:
>>>>> +        type: object  
>>>>
>>>> That's not what I asked for. Like four times I asked you to add here
>>>> unevaluatedProperties: false and I never said that ref to partition.yaml
>>>> should be removed and you... instead remove that ref.
>>>>
>>>> You need to define here children and specify their ref.
>>>>
>>>> You must use unevaluatedProperties: false here. So this is fifth time I
>>>> am writing this feedback.
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>
>>> It is a bit confusing that it is needed to define "partitions" and "label" rules particulary
>>> in this nand controller instead of some common place like nand-chip.yaml, these properties
>>> are common also for the other nand controllers.  
>>
>> No one speaks about label, I never commented about label, I think...
>>
>> If you think the property is really generic and every NAND controller
>> bindings implement it, then feel free to include them there, in a
>> separate patch. It sounds sensible, but I did not check other bindings.
> 
> FYI, label is already defined in mtd/mtd.yaml.

Which is not included here and in nand-controller.yaml

> Partitions do not need to be defined in your binding, just don't put
> any in your example and you'll be fine. These partitions are either
> static and may be described in the DT (see
> mtd/partition/partition.yaml) or there is some dynamic discovery
> involved and a proper parser shall be referenced (parsers have their
> own binding).

I don't think this is correct. Basically you allow any node to be under
partitions as there is no schema validating them (without compatibles).

Best regards,
Krzysztof