On 12/21/2023 4:57 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 21/12/2023 09:49, Aiqun Yu (Maria) wrote:
>> For example:
>>
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/msm/qcom,sm8550-mdss.yaml
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/msm/qcom,sm8550-mdss.yaml
>>
>> @@ -55,14 +50,7 @@ patternProperties:
>>              - const: qcom,sm8350-dp
>>
>>      "^dsi@[0-9a-f]+$":
>> -    type: object
>> -    additionalProperties: true
>> -
>> -    properties:
>> -      compatible:
>> -        items:
>> -          - const: qcom,sm8550-dsi-ctrl
>> -          - const: qcom,mdss-dsi-ctrl
>> +    $ref: ../dsi-controller-main.yaml#
>>
>> With above unified reference change, it will be easier for other
>> developers to reference bindings files next time.
>> Also dsi@[0-9a-f] node in mdss node will be correctly fully described.
> 
> No, this does not make sense and allows anything as dsi. It is opposite
> of what we want in bindings, so NAK.
> 
>>>
>>>> In my opinion if the example have "#address-cells" "#size-cells", then
>>>> it's better to also include "panel@0" with "reg = <0>" to not confuse.
>>>
>>> It is already there, see dsi-controller.yaml.
>>>
>>>>>> 3. Too many bindings files for driver "qcom,mdss-dsi-ctrl", shall we align them into 1 binding files.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is just one.
>>>> Currently I mentioned bindings files was searched the compatible
>>>> "qcom,mdss-dsi-ctrl", and find binding docs like "qcom,sm8550-mdss.yaml"
>>>> "qcom,sm8450-mdss.yaml" etc.
>>>> There is duplicate information on "qcom,sm8550-mdss.yaml" etc, while
>>>> "qcom,mdss-common.yaml" is not common enough for my understanding.
>>>
>>> If you had compared the qcom,SOC-mdss.yaml, you would have seen that
>>> they provide tight binding between compatible strings used for all the
>>> subblocks. The `mdss-common.yaml` describes MDSS common properties. It
>>> describes everything except the platform specifics. It can not be made
>>> more common. And there is no duplication.
>>>
>>> If you think you can improve the bindings, please send the patches.
>> I am thinking of a unified qcom,mdss.yaml instead of "qcom,*each
>> SOC*-mdss.yaml". I will try to have a patch.
> 
> I asked first of you to read previous discussions. If you still insist
> on sending patch for this, it means you did not read them.
Do you have the previous discussion title/link that you are refereed 
here pls?
> 
> How you wrote this idea, sounds like exactly opposite of what we were
> doing and what I was recommending few times on the list, so it is very
> likely I will NAK it.
> 
>>> They must pass the `make dt_binding_check` check.
>> Thx for the remind.
> 
> And follow bindings guidelines.
> 
>>>
>>>>>> 4. enhance the dtc warning check if we still want to have "#address-cells" "#size-cells" even if there is no "panel@0" attached.
>>>>>
>>>>> In my opinion this is a way to go, if any. Did you include devicetree@ ML and the corresponding maintainers into the discussion?
>>>> Already included devicetree@ ML at the very beginning.
>>>
>>> Good, thanks for the confirmation.
>>>
>>>> If the required properties part in each yaml is marked good enough, I
>>>> think it can be an input for avoid unnecessary dtc warnings.
>>>
>>> Patches are welcome.
>> Improving developer efficiency with unnecessary warnings is one of my
>> interest as well.
>> First of all, I'd better to make sure "Required properties" attribute in
>> current bindings are good enough. Let me try to get back on this in a
> 
> I don't understand why do you keep mentioning the "required properties".
> They have nothing to do with any of this here.
> 
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
> 

-- 
Thx and BRs,
Aiqun(Maria) Yu