On 20.01.2021 16:44, Bjørn Mork wrote:
Rafał Miłecki <[email protected]> writes:
Did you check that binding with the dt_binding_check?
Something like:
make dt_binding_check
DT_SCHEMA_FILES=Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/openwrt,uimage.yaml
(you may need arch too, e.g. ARCH=arm64)
Yes, I actually did since I'm not exactly used to writing these files
(or any docs, really :-)
So I used
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/devicetree/writing-schema.html
and tried my best to follow all the instructions.
Retested it now, just to be sure. Need to add the "^openwrt,.*" vendor
opbviously if this should go upstream:
bjorn@miraculix:/usr/local/src/git/linux$ git diff
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml
b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml
index 041ae90b0d8f..bb70d31ec380 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml
@@ -812,6 +812,8 @@ patternProperties:
description: OpenCores.org
"^openrisc,.*":
description: OpenRISC.io
+ "^openwrt,.*":
+ description: OpenWrt
"^option,.*":
description: Option NV
"^oranth,.*":
And I get some warnings I really don't understand:
bjorn@miraculix:/usr/local/src/git/linux$ make dt_binding_check
DT_SCHEMA_FILES=Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/openwrt,uimage.yaml
CHKDT Documentation/devicetree/bindings/processed-schema-examples.json
SCHEMA Documentation/devicetree/bindings/processed-schema-examples.json
DTC
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/openwrt,uimage.example.dt.yaml
CHECK
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/openwrt,uimage.example.dt.yaml
/usr/local/src/git/linux/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/openwrt,uimage.example.dt.yaml:
partition@300000: 'label', 'reg' do not match any of the regexes:
'pinctrl-[0-9]+'
From schema:
/usr/local/src/git/linux/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/openwrt,uimage.yaml
/usr/local/src/git/linux/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/openwrt,uimage.example.dt.yaml:
partition@70000: 'label', 'reg' do not match any of the regexes:
'pinctrl-[0-9]+'
From schema:
/usr/local/src/git/linux/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/openwrt,uimage.yaml
/usr/local/src/git/linux/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/openwrt,uimage.example.dt.yaml:
partition@6c0000: 'label', 'reg' do not match any of the regexes:
'pinctrl-[0-9]+'
From schema:
/usr/local/src/git/linux/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/openwrt,uimage.yaml
This means you used unexpected (unmentioned in .yaml) properties (label and
reg).
It's an interesting timing as I just backported one slightly related patch:
[PATCH] dt-bindings: mtd: convert "fixed-partitions" to the json-schema
https://git.openwrt.org/?p=openwrt/openwrt.git;a=commitdiff;h=7495acb555730b56ca85e259c1565d141220674a
I'm also working on reusing partitions .yaml for other parsers, see:
[PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: mtd: move partition binding to its own file
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-mtd/patch/[email protected]/
[PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: mtd: add binding from BCM4908 partitions
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-mtd/patch/[email protected]/
I think preferred license for yaml (that dt_binding_check checks for) is
# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause
Wondered about that, but didn't find any specific recommendation. And
there are all plenty of both:
bjorn@miraculix:/usr/local/src/git/linux$ git grep -h SPDX-License-Identifier
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/|sort|uniq -c
6 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0)
378 # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
10 # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
4 .. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
1 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only)
71 # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
15 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only or BSD-2-Clause)
3 # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only or BSD-2-Clause
539 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
79 # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause
307 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause)
7 # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause
9 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR BSD-2-Clause)
1 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-or-later)
4 # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later
5 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-or-later OR BSD-2-Clause)
3 # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later OR BSD-2-Clause
3 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR MIT)
3 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT)
3 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR X11)
But I won't object to changing it if you think that is better somehow.
It's not like I see the real differnece here.. Why would anyone want to
distibute a modified version of this schema in any other form than yaml
source?
I personally don't have any strong preferences, I'm just trying to follow
upstream rules. If you use license preferred by upstream developers, it'll
make it easier for someone (maybe me) to upstream your work later.
If you check Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.txt , it
says you should use GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause. That rule was added by Rob
in the commit 70145d16b3c1 ("dt: submitting-patches: Document requirements
for DT schema"). No extra explanation on "why". I would prefer not having
to argue with Rob though ;)
_______________________________________________
openwrt-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
