Re: [RFC PATCH] dt-bindings: regulator: twl-regulator: convert to yaml

[Andreas Kemnade]

On Tue, 28 May 2024 15:36:40 +0100
Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 03:54:05PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On 28/05/2024 15:06, Andreas Kemnade wrote:  
> > > On Tue, 28 May 2024 13:25:29 +0200
> > > Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >   
> > >> On 28/05/2024 13:16, Andreas Kemnade wrote:  
> > >>> On Tue, 28 May 2024 12:04:22 +0200
> > >>> Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>>     
> > >>>> On 28/05/2024 08:57, Andreas Kemnade wrote:    
> > >>>>> Convert the regulator bindings to yaml files. To allow only the regulator
> > >>>>> compatible corresponding to the toplevel mfd compatible, split the file
> > >>>>> into one per device.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> To not need to allow any subnode name, specify clearly node names
> > >>>>> for all the regulators.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Drop one twl5030 compatible due to no documentation on mfd side and no
> > >>>>> users of the twl5030.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Andreas Kemnade <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >>>>> ---
> > >>>>> Reason for being RFC:
> > >>>>> the integration into ti,twl.yaml seems not to work as expected
> > >>>>> make dt_binding_check crashes without any clear error message
> > >>>>> if used on the ti,twl.yaml
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>  .../devicetree/bindings/mfd/ti,twl.yaml       |   4 +-
> > >>>>>  .../regulator/ti,twl4030-regulator.yaml       | 402 ++++++++++++++++++
> > >>>>>  .../regulator/ti,twl6030-regulator.yaml       | 292 +++++++++++++
> > >>>>>  .../regulator/ti,twl6032-regulator.yaml       | 238 +++++++++++
> > >>>>>  .../bindings/regulator/twl-regulator.txt      |  80 ----
> > >>>>>  5 files changed, 935 insertions(+), 81 deletions(-)
> > >>>>>  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/ti,twl4030-regulator.yaml
> > >>>>>  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/ti,twl6030-regulator.yaml
> > >>>>>  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/ti,twl6032-regulator.yaml
> > >>>>>  delete mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/twl-regulator.txt
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/ti,twl.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/ti,twl.yaml
> > >>>>> index c2357fecb56cc..4ced6e471d338 100644
> > >>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/ti,twl.yaml
> > >>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/ti,twl.yaml
> > >>>>> @@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ allOf:
> > >>>>>            properties:
> > >>>>>              compatible:
> > >>>>>                const: ti,twl4030-wdt
> > >>>>> -
> > >>>>> +        $ref: /schemas/regulator/ti,twl4030-regulator.yaml      
> > >>>>
> > >>>> That's not needed, just like othehr refs below.
> > >>>>    
> > >>> but how to prevent error messages like this:
> > >>>
> > >>> arch/arm/boot/dts/ti/omap/omap2430-sdp.dtb: twl@48: Unevaluated properties are not allowed ('gpio', 'keypad', 'pwm', 'pwmled', 'regulator-vaux1', 'regulator-vaux2', 'regulator-vaux3', 'regulator-vaux4', 'regulator-vdac', 'regulator-vdd1', 'regulator-vintana1', 'regulator-vintana2', 'regulator-vintdig', 'regulator-vio', 'regulator-vmmc1', 'regulator-vmmc2', 'regulator-vpll1', 'regulator-vpll2', 'regulator-vsim', 'regulator-vusb1v5', 'regulator-vusb1v8', 'regulator-vusb3v1
> > >>>
> > >>> esp. the regulator parts without adding stuff to ti,twl.yaml?    
> > >>
> > >> Eh? That's a watchdog, not regulator. Why do you add ref to regulator?
> > >>  
> > > hmm, wrongly indented? At what level doet it belong? But as the regualor.yaml stuff can
> > > be shortened, maybe just add it directly to ti,twl.yaml to avoid that trouble.  
> > 
> > I don't follow. The diff here and in other two places suggest you add
> > twl-regulator reference to wdt/gpio/whatnot nodes, not to regulators.  
> 
> The diff may look like that, but I think they're just trying to add it
> as a subnode of the pmic. There are other nodes, like the madc that do
> this in the same file:
>         madc:
>           type: object
>           $ref: /schemas/iio/adc/ti,twl4030-madc.yaml
>           unevaluatedProperties: false
> 
> I guess this is what was being attempted, albeit incorrectly.

correct. No regulators node, just everything directly as a subnode of
the pmic. Well, I have now something using patternProperties directly itn ti,twl.yaml
including a more detailed example which does not upset dt_binding_check.
I am running dtbs_check to check if anything is odd. the 4030 variant seems
to be ok, waiting for some dtbs containing 603X now.

But somehow I would feel better if I would understand what was syntactically
wrong with my original proposal. I have totally no idea yet.

The error message of dt_binding_check is also meaningless:
 CHKDT   Documentation/devicetree/bindings
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/home/andi/.local/bin/dt-doc-validate", line 64, in <module>
    ret |= check_doc(f)
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/home/andi/.local/bin/dt-doc-validate", line 32, in check_doc
    for error in sorted(dtsch.iter_errors(), key=lambda e: e.linecol):
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/home/andi/.local/pipx/venvs/dtschema/lib/python3.11/site-packages/dtschema/schema.py", line 125, in iter_errors
    self.annotate_error(scherr, meta_schema, scherr.schema_path)
  File "/home/andi/.local/pipx/venvs/dtschema/lib/python3.11/site-packages/dtschema/schema.py", line 104, in annotate_error
    schema = schema[p]
             ~~~~~~^^^
KeyError: 'type'
  LINT    Documentation/devicetree/bindings

IMHO this should be improved.
	
Regards,
Andreas