Re: [PATCH 0/3] Fix up qcom,halt-regs definition in various schemas

[Luca Weiss]

On Dienstag, 9. April 2024 17:10:41 CEST Rob Herring wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2024 at 11:58:29AM +0200, Luca Weiss wrote:
> > The original motivation is that a bunch of other schemas fail to
> > validate qcom,halt-regs, for example like in the following examples:
> > 
> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/apq8016-sbc.dtb: remoteproc@4080000: qcom,halt-regs:0: [20] is too short
> >         from schema $id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/remoteproc/qcom,msm8916-mss-pil.yaml#
> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/apq8096-ifc6640.dtb: remoteproc@2080000: qcom,halt-regs:0: [82] is too short
> >         from schema $id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/remoteproc/qcom,msm8996-mss-pil.yaml#
> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/apq8039-t2.dtb: remoteproc@4080000: qcom,halt-regs:0: [32] is too short
> >         from schema $id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/remoteproc/qcom,msm8916-mss-pil.yaml#
> > 
> > While I'm actually not quite sure why these patches fix this in
> > the other schemas - feels like a bug/limitation in dt-schema maybe? -
> 
> Was this with v2024.02? It should be a bit better there. Though it 
> may just have different errors. The limitation is that property 
> types and in the case of matrix's (which phandle-array actually is) 
> range for dimensions are global. So if there's not correct dimensions 
> for a property, the tools aren't going to decode it properly.

You're right, I doesn't look like I can reproduce this with the latest
dtschema installed.

Anyways these patches should be good to actually validate qcom,halt-regs for
the schemas I'm touching here.

Regards
Luca

> 
> Rob
>