On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 8:00 AM Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinch...@ideasonboard.com> wrote: > > Hi Rob and Sameer, > > Thank you for the patch. > > On Mon, Nov 02, 2020 at 02:36:54PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > From: Sameer Pujar <spu...@nvidia.com> > > > > Convert device tree bindings of graph to YAML format. Currently graph.txt > > doc is referenced in multiple files and all of these need to use schema > > references. For now graph.txt is updated to refer to graph.yaml. > > > > For users of the graph binding, they should reference to the graph > > schema from either 'ports' or 'port' property: > > > > properties: > > ports: > > type: object > > $ref: graph.yaml#/properties/ports > > > > properties: > > port@0: > > description: What data this port has > > > > ... > > > > Or: > > > > properties: > > port: > > description: What data this port has > > type: object > > $ref: graph.yaml#/properties/port > > Sounds like a good approach. > > > Signed-off-by: Sameer Pujar <spu...@nvidia.com> > > Acked-by: Philipp Zabel <p.za...@pengutronix.de> > > Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <r...@kernel.org> > > --- > > v3: > > - Move port 'reg' to port@* and make required > > - Make remote-endpoint required > > - Add 'additionalProperties: true' now required > > - Fix yamllint warnings > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/graph.txt | 129 +----------- > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/graph.yaml | 199 +++++++++++++++++++ > > 2 files changed, 200 insertions(+), 128 deletions(-) > > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/graph.yaml
[...] > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/graph.yaml > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/graph.yaml > > new file mode 100644 > > index 000000000000..b56720c5a13e > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/graph.yaml > > @@ -0,0 +1,199 @@ > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) > > +%YAML 1.2 > > +--- > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/graph.yaml# > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > > + > > +title: Common bindings for device graphs > > + > > +description: | > > + The hierarchical organisation of the device tree is well suited to > > describe > > + control flow to devices, but there can be more complex connections > > between > > + devices that work together to form a logical compound device, following > > an > > + arbitrarily complex graph. > > + There already is a simple directed graph between devices tree nodes using > > + phandle properties pointing to other nodes to describe connections that > > + can not be inferred from device tree parent-child relationships. The > > device > > + tree graph bindings described herein abstract more complex devices that > > can > > + have multiple specifiable ports, each of which can be linked to one or > > more > > + ports of other devices. > > + > > + These common bindings do not contain any information about the direction > > or > > + type of the connections, they just map their existence. Specific > > properties > > + may be described by specialized bindings depending on the type of > > connection. > > + > > + To see how this binding applies to video pipelines, for example, see > > + Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/video-interfaces.txt. > > + Here the ports describe data interfaces, and the links between them are > > + the connecting data buses. A single port with multiple connections can > > + correspond to multiple devices being connected to the same physical bus. > > + > > +maintainers: > > + - Philipp Zabel <p.za...@pengutronix.de> > > + > > +select: false > > + > > +properties: > > + port: > > + type: object > > + description: > > + If there is more than one endpoint node or 'reg' property present in > > + endpoint nodes then '#address-cells' and '#size-cells' properties are > > + required. > > + > > + properties: > > + "#address-cells": > > + const: 1 > > + > > + "#size-cells": > > + const: 0 > > + > > + patternProperties: > > + "^endpoint(@[0-9a-f]+)?$": > > + type: object > > + properties: > > + reg: > > + maxItems: 1 > > + > > + remote-endpoint: > > + description: | > > + phandle to an 'endpoint' subnode of a remote device node. > > + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle > > + > > + required: > > + - remote-endpoint > > As noted elsewhere, this shouldn't be required. > > Should we set additionalProperties: false here ? No, we've got a bunch of properties that get added to endpoint nodes. There's a few cases where 'port' nodes have properties too. > > + ports: > > + type: object > > + description: | > > + If there is more than one port node or 'reg' property present in port > > + nodes then '#address-cells' and '#size-cells' properties are > > required. > > + In such cases all port nodes can be grouped under 'ports' > > independently > > + from any other child device nodes a device might have. > > Allowing multiple port nodes not grouped in a ports node has created > complexity, with very little gain. Should we forbid that going forward ? Yes, that's probably a separate change. The examples need updating too. We do have a few cases we'll have to support though. > > + properties: > > + "#address-cells": > > + const: 1 > > + > > + "#size-cells": > > + const: 0 > > + > > + patternProperties: > > + "^port(@[0-9a-f]+)?$": > > + $ref: "#/properties/port" > > + type: object > > + > > + properties: > > + reg: > > + maxItems: 1 > > + > > + required: > > + - reg > > + > > + > > Maybe a single blank line ? > > Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinch...@ideasonboard.com> I've gone thru and updated schemas to use this. Primarily to prove out a meta-schema for it. So I'll be sending out another version. Rob
