Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Tue, 17 Jan 2023 18:01:27 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 1/6] dt-bindings: media: platform: visconti: Add Toshiba Visconti Video Input Interface bindings | From | Krzysztof Kozlowski <> |
| |
On 17/01/2023 16:58, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Krzysztof, > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 04:42:51PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 17/01/2023 16:26, Laurent Pinchart wrote: >>> >>>> + >>>> + clock-lanes: >>>> + description: VIIF supports 1 clock line >>> >>> s/line/lane/ >>> >>>> + const: 0 >>> >>> I would also add >>> >>> clock-noncontinuous: true >>> link-frequencies: true >>> >>> to indicate that the above two properties are used by this device. >> >> No, these are coming from other schema and there is never need to >> mention some property to indicate it is more used than other case. None >> of the bindings are created such way, so this should not be exception. > > There are some bindings that do so, but that may not be a good enough > reason, as there's a chance I wrote those myself :-) > > I would have sworn that at some point in the past the schema wouldn't > have validated the example with this omitted. I'm not sure if something > changed or if I got this wrong.
You probably think about case when using additionalProperties:false, where one has to explicitly list all valid properties. But not for unevaluatedProperties:false.
> > video-interfaces.yaml defines lots of properties applicable to > endpoints. For a given device, those properties should be required
required: - foo
> (easy, that's defined in the bindings), optional,
by default (with unevaluatedProperties:false) or explicitly mention "foo: true (with additionalProperties:false)
> or forbidden. How do
foo: false (with unevaluatedProperties:false) or by default (with additionalProperties:false)
> we differentiate between the latter two cases ?
Best regards, Krzysztof
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |