Re: [PATCH] media: dt-bindings: i2c: ovti,ov5640: Drop ref to video-interface-devices.yaml

[Lad, Prabhakar]

Hi Krzysztof,

On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 9:19 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 19/09/2022 10:08, Lad, Prabhakar wrote:
> > Hi Laurent,
> >
> > Thank you for the review.
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 18, 2022 at 12:06 AM Laurent Pinchart
> > <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Prabhakar,
> >>
> >> Thank you for the patch.
> >>
> >> On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 02:35:21PM +0100, Prabhakar wrote:
> >>> From: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>
> >>> video-interface-devices.yaml isn't used so just drop it from the
> >>> DT binding doc.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/i2c/ovti,ov5640.yaml | 3 ---
> >>>  1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/i2c/ovti,ov5640.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/i2c/ovti,ov5640.yaml
> >>> index 540fd69ac39f..ce99aada75ad 100644
> >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/i2c/ovti,ov5640.yaml
> >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/i2c/ovti,ov5640.yaml
> >>> @@ -9,9 +9,6 @@ title: OmniVision OV5640 Image Sensor Device Tree Bindings
> >>>  maintainers:
> >>>    - Steve Longerbeam <slongerbeam@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>
> >>> -allOf:
> >>> -  - $ref: /schemas/media/video-interface-devices.yaml#
> >>> -
> >>
> >> The rotation property listed in this binding uses the definition from
> >> video-interface-devices.yaml. I don't think just dropping this is the
> >> right solution. Changing additionaProperties to unevaluatedProperties
> >> seems a better option.
> >>
> > Agreed, I missed rotation was used from video-interface-devices.yaml.
> > Agreed the changing additionaProperties to unevaluatedProperties seems
> > a better option.
>
> The meaning of unevaluatedProperties:false would be here - accept other
> properties (not mentioned here explicitly) from referenced schema. If
> this is your actual intention for this binding, it makes sense. But if
> the intention in this binding was to disallow these other properties,
> then it would be wrong to change to unevaluatedProperties.
>
Thank you for the clarification. The intention is to disallow the property.

> Therefore before sending patches and calling something better or not,
> please instead focus on that aspect of referenced schema.
>
Sure will do, sorry for the noise.

Cheers,
Prabhakar