Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] dt-bindings: drm: bridge: adi,adv7511.txt: convert to yaml

From: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Cc: "Laurent Pinchart" <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>,
	"Ricardo Cañuelo" <ricardo.canuelo@collabora.com>,
	"Collabora Kernel ML" <kernel@collabora.com>,
	"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS"
	<devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Linux ARM" <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	"Geert Uytterhoeven" <geert+renesas@glider.be>,
	"Wei Xu" <xuwei5@hisilicon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] dt-bindings: drm: bridge: adi,adv7511.txt: convert to yaml
Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 11:29:51 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAL_JsqJgQajnKdQ1Bt6YFX04fX0VGz44Q3kBdLLR04OzhWrH5A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMuHMdXinhY13us9rt9h7EvrT_8zhnQg6tmOBtA0nEQ=1G1O7Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 1:03 AM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Laurent,
>
> On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 3:44 AM Laurent Pinchart
> <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 09:43:35AM +0200, Ricardo Cañuelo wrote:
> > > On jue 14-05-2020 18:22:39, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > > > If we want to be more strict and require the definition of all the
> > > > > supplies, there will be many more DTs changes in the series, and I'm not
> > > > > sure I'll be able to do that in a reasonable amount of time. I'm looking
> > > > > at them and it's not always clear which regulators to use or if they are
> > > > > even defined.
> > > >
> > > > We can decouple the two though (I think). The bindings should reflect
> > > > what we consider right, and the dts files could be fixed on top.
> > >
> > > Do you have a suggestion on how to do this? If we decouple the two
> > > tasks most of the work would be searching for DTs to fix and finding a
> > > way to fix each one of them, and unless I do this _before_ the binding
> > > conversion I'll get a lot of dtbs_check errors.
> >
> > Rob should answer this question as it will be his decision, but I've
> > personally never considered non-compliant DT sources to be an obstacle
> > to bindings conversion to YAML. The DT sources should be fixed, but I
> > don't see it as a prerequisite (although it's a good practice).

There's currently no requirement that binding schema don't introduce
warnings in dts files. That should change when/if we get to a warning
free state (probably per platform/family). I don't think we're close
on any platform? (If we are, I'd like to start tracking that). It is
good to pay attention to the warnings you get though as the schema may
not be doing what you expect or the binding really doesn't match
reality.

> I do my best to avoid introducing regressions when the binding conversions
> go upstream.

Meaning you fix the dts files or massage the schema to match? If we
just adjust schema to match, what's the point in this effort? We
should find things wrong or ill defined.

Rob