Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: display: renesas,du: narrow interrupts and resets per variants

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>]

On 18/08/2024 19:51, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 18, 2024 at 07:44:22PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 18/08/2024 19:41, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>> Hi Krzysztof,
>>>
>>> Thank you for the patch.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Aug 18, 2024 at 07:30:02PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> Each variable-length property like interrupts or resets must have fixed
>>>> constraints on number of items for given variant in binding.  The
>>>> clauses in "if:then:" block should define both limits: upper and lower.
>>>
>>> I thought that, when only one of minItems or maxItems was specified, the
>>> other automatically defaulted to the same value. I'm pretty sure I
>>> recall Rob asking me to drop one of the two in some bindings. Has the
>>> rule changes ? Is it documented somewhere ?
>>
>> New dtschema changed it and, even if previous behavior is restored, the
>> size in if:then: always had to be constrained. You could have skipped
>> one side of limit if it was equal to outer/top-level limit, e.g:
>>
>> properties:
>>   clocks:
>>     minItems: 1
>>     maxItems: 2
>>
>>
>> if:then:properties:
>>   clocks:
>>     minItems: 2
> 
> Where can I find a description of the behaviour of the new dtschema
> (hopefully with some documentation) ?

No clue, but I feel there is some core concept missing. Your earlier
statement:
"I thought that, when only one of minItems or maxItems was specified, the"

was never logically correct for the "if:then", except for the case I
mentioned above. That's why all schema used as examples had it explicit:

My talk from 2022, page 30:
https://static.sched.com/hosted_files/osseu2022/bd/How%20to%20Get%20Your%20DT%20Schema%20Bindings%20Accepted%20in%20Less%20than%2010%20Iterations%20-%20Krzysztof%20Kozlowski%2C%20Linaro.pdf?_gl=1*kmzqmt*_gcl_au*MTU2MzQ1MjY0Mi4xNzIxNzE0NDc1
all constraints defined,.

My talk from 2023, page 34:
https://static.sched.com/hosted_files/eoss2023/a8/How%20to%20Get%20Your%20DT%20Schema%20Bindings%20Accepted%20in%20Less%20than%2010%20Iterations%20-%20Krzysztof%20Kozlowski%2C%20Linaro%20-%20ELCE%202023.pdf?_gl=1*1jgx6d3*_gcl_au*MTU2MzQ1MjY0Mi4xNzIxNzE0NDc1

Recently, I started using other example as "useful reference":
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.8/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/qcom,ufs.yaml#L132

That's nothing. All three above reference examples I keep giving are
already there and repeated in emails all the time.

So aren't you confusing the entire "skip one limit" for top-level
properties? This patch is not about it all and dtschema did not change.

Best regards,
Krzysztof