Re: [PATCH 4/4] dt-bindings: net: dsa: mediatek,mt7530: update json-schema

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

On 12/08/2022 17:06, Arınç ÜNAL wrote:
> 
> 
> On 12.08.2022 16:48, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 12/08/2022 16:41, Arınç ÜNAL wrote:
>>> On 12.08.2022 10:01, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 12/08/2022 09:57, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>> On 12/08/2022 01:09, Arınç ÜNAL wrote:
>>>>>>>> -patternProperties:
>>>>>>>> -  "^(ethernet-)?ports$":
>>>>>>>> -    type: object
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Actually four patches...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't find this change explained in commit msg. What is more, it looks
>>>>>>> incorrect. All properties and patternProperties should be explained in
>>>>>>> top-level part.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Defining such properties (with big piece of YAML) in each if:then: is no
>>>>>>> readable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can't figure out another way. I need to require certain properties for
>>>>>> a compatible string AND certain enum/const for certain properties which
>>>>>> are inside patternProperties for "^(ethernet-)?port@[0-9]+$" by reading
>>>>>> the compatible string.
>>>>>
>>>>> requiring properties is not equal to defining them and nothing stops you
>>>>> from defining all properties top-level and requiring them in
>>>>> allOf:if:then:patternProperties.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> If I put allOf:if:then under patternProperties, I can't do the latter.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can.
>>>
>>> Am I supposed to do something like this:
>>>
>>> patternProperties:
>>>     "^(ethernet-)?ports$":
>>>       type: object
>>>
>>>       patternProperties:
>>>         "^(ethernet-)?port@[0-9]+$":
>>>           type: object
>>>           description: Ethernet switch ports
>>>
>>>           unevaluatedProperties: false
>>>
>>>           properties:
>>>             reg:
>>>               description:
>>>                 Port address described must be 5 or 6 for CPU port and
>>>                 from 0 to 5 for user ports.
>>>
>>>           allOf:
>>>             - $ref: dsa-port.yaml#
>>>             - if:
>>>                 properties:
>>>                   label:
>>>                     items:
>>>                       - const: cpu
>>>               then:
>>>                 allOf:
>>>                   - if:
>>>                       properties:
>>
>> Not really, this is absolutely unreadable.
>>
>> Usually the way it is handled is:
>>
>> patternProperties:
>>     "^(ethernet-)?ports$":
>>       type: object
>>
>>       patternProperties:
>>         "^(ethernet-)?port@[0-9]+$":
>>           type: object
>>           description: Ethernet switch ports
>>           unevaluatedProperties: false
>>           ... regular stuff follows
>>
>> allOf:
>>   - if:
>>       properties:
>>         compatible:
>>           .....
>>     then:
>>       patternProperties:
>>         "^(ethernet-)?ports$":
>>           patternProperties:
>>             "^(ethernet-)?port@[0-9]+$":
>>               properties:
>>                 reg:
>>                   const: 5
>>
>>
>> I admit that it is still difficult to parse, which could justify
>> splitting to separate schema. Anyway the point of my comment was to
>> define all properties in top level, not in allOf.
>>
>> allOf should be used to constrain these properties.
> 
> The problem is:
> - only specific values of reg are allowed if label is cpu.
> - only specific values of phy-mode are allowed if reg is 5 or 6.
> 
> This forces me to define properties under allOf:if:then. 

None of the reasons above force you to define properties in some
allOf:if:then subblock. These force you to constrain the properties in
allOf:if:then, but not define.

> Splitting to 
> separate schema (per compatible string?) wouldn't help in this case.

True.

> 
> I can split patternProperties to two sections, but I can't directly 
> define the reg property like you put above.

Of course you can and original bindings were doing it.

Let me ask specific questions (yes, no):
1. Are ethernet-ports and ethernet-port present in each variant?

2. Is dsa-port.yaml applicable to each variant? (looks like that - three
compatibles, three all:if:then)
3. If reg appearing in each variant?
4. If above is true, if reg is maximum one item in each variant?

Looking at your patch, I think answer is 4x yes, which means you can
define them in one place and constrain in allOf:if:then, just like all
other schemas, because this one is not different.

Best regards,
Krzysztof