Hi Rob, On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:32:30AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 7:25 AM Maxime Ripard <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 12:59:29PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 8:31 AM Andrew Lunn <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > +required: > > > > > + - compatible > > > > > + - reg > > > > > + - interrupts > > > > > + - clocks > > > > > + - phy > > > > > + - allwinner,sram > > > > > > > > Quoting ethernet.txt: > > > > > > > > - phy: the same as "phy-handle" property, not recommended for new > > > > bindings. > > > > > > > > - phy-handle: phandle, specifies a reference to a node representing a > > > > PHY > > > > device; this property is described in the Devicetree Specification > > > > and so > > > > preferred; > > > > > > > > Can this be expressed in Yaml? Accept phy, but give a warning. Accept > > > > phy-handle without a warning? Enforce that one or the other is > > > > present? > > > > > > The common schema could have 'phy: false'. This works as long as we've > > > updated (or plan to) all the dts files to use phy-handle. The issue is > > > how far back do you need kernels to work with newer dtbs. > > > > I guess another question being raised by this is how hard do we want > > to be a deprecating things, and should the DT validation be a tool to > > enforce that validation. > > > > For example, you've used in you GPIO meta-schema false for anything > > ending with -gpio, since it's deprecated. This means that we can't > > convert any binding using a deprecated property without introducing a > > build error in the schemas, which in turn means that you'll have a lot > > of friction to support schemas, since you would have to convert your > > driver to support the new way of doing things, before being able to > > have a schema for your binding. > > I've err'ed on the stricter side. We may need to back off on some > things to get to warning free builds. Really, I'd like to have levels > to separate checks for existing bindings, new bindings, and pedantic > checks.
That would be awesome. Do you have a plan for that already though? I
can't really think of a way to implement it at the moment.
> For '-gpio', we may be okay because the suffix is handled in the GPIO
> core. It should be safe to update the binding to use the preferred
> form.
It might require a bit of work though in drivers, since the fallback
is only handled if you're using the gpiod API, and not the legacy one.
> > And then, we need to agree on how to express the deprecation. I guess
> > we could allow the deprecated keyword that will be there in the
> > draft-8, instead of ad-hoc solutions?
>
> Oh, nice! I hadn't seen that. Seems like we should use that. We can
> start even without draft-8 support because unknown keywords are
> ignored (though we probably have to add it to our meta-schema). Then
> at some point we can add a 'disallow deprecated' flag to the tool.
So, in the generic ethernet binding, we would have:
properties:
phy-handle:
$ref: /schemas/types.yaml#definitions/phandle
description:
Specifies a reference to a node representing a PHY device.
phy:
$ref: "#/properties/phy-handle"
deprecated: true
phy-device:
$ref: "#/properties/phy-handle"
deprecated: true
Does that sound good?
Now, how do we handle the case above, in the device specific binding?
We just require the non-deprecated one, or the three?
Thanks!
Maxime
--
Maxime Ripard, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
