Re: [PATCH v8 1/4] dt-bindings: clock: Document external clocks for MSM8998 gcc

[Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>]

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 1:38 PM Jeffrey Hugo <jhugo@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>
> On 11/12/2019 11:37 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 10:25 AM Jeffrey Hugo <jhugo@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 11/11/2019 5:44 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 04:17:16PM -0700, Jeffrey Hugo wrote:
> >>>> The global clock controller on MSM8998 can consume a number of external
> >>>> clocks.  Document them.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Jeffrey Hugo <jhugo@codeaurora.org>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>    .../devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,gcc.yaml        | 47 +++++++++++++++-------
> >>>>    1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,gcc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,gcc.yaml
> >>>> index e73a56f..2f3512b 100644
> >>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,gcc.yaml
> >>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,gcc.yaml
> >>>> @@ -40,20 +40,38 @@ properties:
> >>>>           - qcom,gcc-sm8150
> >>>>
> >>>>      clocks:
> >>>> -    minItems: 1
> >>>
> >>> 1 or 2 clocks are no longer allowed?
> >>
> >> Correct.
> >>
> >> The primary reason is that Stephen indicated in previous discussions
> >> that if the hardware exists, it should be indicated in DT, regardless if
> >> the driver uses it.  In the 7180 and 8150 case, the hardware exists, so
> >> these should not be optional.
> >
> > Agreed. The commit message should mention this though.
>
> Fair enough, will do.
>
> >
> >>
> >> The secondary reason is I found that the schema was broken anyways.  In
> >> the way it was written, if you implemented sleep, you could not skip
> >> xo_ao, however there is a dts that did exactly that.
> >
> > If a dts can be updated in a compatible way, we should do that rather
> > than carry inconsistencies into the schema.
> >
> >> The third reason was that I couldn't find a way to write valid yaml to
> >> preserve the original meaning.  when you have an "items" as a subnode of
> >> "oneOf", you no longer have control over the minItems/maxItems, so all 3
> >> became required anyways.
> >
> > That would be a bug. You're saying something like this doesn't work?:
> >
> > oneOf:
> >    - minItems: 1
> >      maxItems: 3
> >      items:
> >        - const: a
> >        - const: b
> >        - const: c
>
> Yes.  That specifically won't work.  "items" would need to have the dash
> preceding it, otherwise it won't compile if you have more than one.  But
> ignoring that, yes, when it compiled, and I saw the output from the
> check failing (after adding verbose mode), min and max for the items
> list would be 3, and the check would fail.

A '-' before items would make oneOf have 2 separate schemas. That
would pass with any values for 1-3 items except it would fail for 3
items with [a, b, c] because 2 oneOf clauses pass.

> >>   I find it disappointing that the "version" of
> >> Yaml used for DT bindings is not documented,
> >
> > Not sure which part you mean? json-schema is the vocabulary which has
> > a spec. The meta-schema then constrains what the json-schema structure
> > should look like. That's still evolving a bit as I try to improve it
> > based on mistakes people make. Then there's the intermediate .dt.yaml
> > format used internally. That's supposed to stay internal and may go
> > away when/if we integrate the validation into dtc.
>
> So, this is probably off-topic, but hopefully you'll find this useful.

I'm interested in knowing the pain points.

> I'm probably in the minority, but I really haven't used json-schema nor
> yaml before.  I have experience with other "schema" languages, so I
> figured I could pick what I need from the documentation.

Well, json-schema was new to me before this. There's definitely some
things I really don't love about it, but it's better than trying to
define our own language. It's generally been able to handle some of
the more complex cases.

> The only documentation I see is writing-schema.md and example-schema.yaml
>
> To me, writing-schema.md is insufficient.  Its better than nothing, so
> I'm still glad it exists, but I don't have any confidence I can really
> write a binding yaml from scratch based on it.  It does a good thing by
> telling you what are important properties of a binding, so based on that
> you can kind of start to understand how existing bindings actually work.
>   Its great in telling you how to run the validation checks (the Running
> checks) section.  The dependencies section is awesome from my
> perspective - most projects seem to assume you just know what their
> dependencies are, and its painful to try to figure them out when you get
> cryptic errors during make.
>
> Where it really fails is that I get no sense of the language.  As a
> minimum a lexigraphic specification that would allow me to write a
> compiler (I've done this before).  Then I would understand what are the
> keywords, and where they are valid.  I wouldn't understand what they
> mean, but at-least I can look at some implemented examples and
> extrapolate from there.
>
> Have you by chance ever looked at the ACPI spec?  Maybe not the best
> example, but its the one that comes to my mind first.  ACPI has ACPI
> Source Language (ASL).  Its an interpreted hardware description language
> that doesn't match yaml, but I think the ACPI spec does a reasonable job
> of describing it.  You have a lexographic definition which seems to be
> really helpful to ACPICA in implementing the intrepreter.  It lists all
> of the valid operators, types, etc.  It provides detailed references of
> each keyword - how they are used, what they do, etc.  Its not the
> greatest at "how to write ASL 101" or "these are common problems that
> people face, and how they can be solved", but atleast with what there
> is, I could read every keyword that seems to be possibly related to what
> I want to do, and hazard a guess if it would work for my problem.

I have not read the ACPI spec.

> Perhaps that is outside the scope of the writing-schema.md document,
> that is fair.  However, I argue that the document does not provide
> sufficient references.  The document provides a reference to the
> json-schema spec, but the spec is kinda useless (atleast I feel that it
> is).  "minItems" is not defined anywhere in the spec.  What does it
> mean?  How can I use it?  Specific to minItems/maxItems, I'll I've
> gathered about it is from example-schema.yaml which indicates its a way
> to identify mandatory and optional values for a property, but it doesn't
> describe the fact that order matters, and you cannot mix/match things -
> IE it looks like you need atleast min items, and at most max items, but
> even if you have enough items to satisfy min, there cannot be gaps (you
> can't pick items 1, 5, 10 from the list).  I only found that out from
> running the validation checks with trial/error.

I think you looked at the 'Core' spec rather than the 'Validation' spec:
http://json-schema.org/draft/2019-09/json-schema-validation.html

Though that has moved on to a newer version and we're still on draft7
which is here:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-handrews-json-schema-validation-01

I guess a direct link to this with 'Details on json-schema keywords is
here' would be helpful.

minItems/maxItems is the one area we deviate from json-schema
defaults. That's what the 'Property Schema' section calls out.

Order matters for DT too, so that aspect matches up well with
json-schema. That's been a common issue in dts files, so schema
starting to enforce that will be good for new bindings, but somewhat
painful for existing ones.

> There is no reference to the yaml spec, despite the document stating
> that the bindings are written in yaml.
>
> However, having found the yaml spec, its really not much better than the
> json-schema spec, and it doesn't line up because as the document states,
> the bindings are not really written in yaml - its a subset of yaml where
> a ton of the boilerplate "code" is skipped.

Yeah, there's a lot to YAML that no one uses and I too find the spec
pretty useless (hence why no reference). Like most other uses I've
encountered, we're using a JSON compatible subset which is just lists
and dicts of key/value pairs. The main thing folks need to know and
trip up on are: indentation is important (including no tabs) and pay
attention to '-' or lack of.

> What is boilerplate that is skipped?  IMO, if you are not strictly
> adhering to yaml, then you need to clearly document your own derivative
> language so that someone like me whom is being introduced to all of this
> for the first time can start to figure out some of it.  It would be
> helpful to look at other yaml examples, and understand what is
> considered to be boilerplate so I can translate that to a DT binding.

We're not skipping any boilerplate. We're not using advanced features
like tags or anchors. You can use any YAML parser including online
ones to read the files.

> I understand, the majority of the above is complaints and demands which
> is really not fair to you, since you are spending what I presume to be
> your "non-dayjob" time to make the community better.

It's my day job or part of it, just not enough hours in the day...

> However, I don't
> really know how to contribute to make the documentation better.  I don't
> understand enough.  As far as this topic is concerned, I'm a dumb monkey
> banging on a keyboard hoping to get close enough to Shakespeare to pass
> mustard by accident, and maybe learn something along the way so that
> next time, I might have an idea of how to do something of what I need.

The challenge is providing enough information to write bindings
without being json-schema experts. My hope is really to build up
enough examples and make the meta-schema good enough to keep folks
within the lines. Maybe that's a flawed approach, but even getting
folks to follow writing-schema.rst and run 'make dt_binding_check' has
been a challenge.

> Hopefully you've made it this far - that ended up being a lot more text
> that I thought it would be.  I really hope this is useful feedback to
> you, but let me know if I am still not clear on something.  I will try
> my best to clarify more.  If you feel like I can contribute somehow,
> just let me know.
>
> >
> >> so after several hours of
> >> trial and error, I just gave up since I found this to work (failed cases
> >> just gave me an error with no indication of what was wrong, not even a
> >> line number).
> >
> > Schema failures or dts failures? It is possible to get line numbers
> > for either, but that makes validation much slower. In the latter case,
> > the line numbers aren't too useful either given they are for the
> > .dt.yaml file and not the .dts source file (dtc integration would
> > solve that). Adding '-n' to dt-doc-validate or dt-validate will turn
> > them on though.
>
> Schema compilation failures.  I don't recall the exact error message,
> but it was something like "no valid schema found, continuing".
> Essentially running "dt_binding_check".  I tried with -v but wasn't
> getting much more in this case.  I didn't try -n.

That's before we even validate the schema, so something has gone wrong
pretty early. You may get farther with 'make -k'. I'll have to look
into it. The schemas are actually built twice. They are all built into
processed-schema.yaml. That's supposed to skip any with errors and is
what's used to validate dts files. If that's failing for some reason,
then it's going to be pretty vague. The dt_binding_check rule also
fully validates each binding schema and builds and validates the
examples. It should print more detailed errors (though still sometimes
vague).

Rob