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

[Laurent Pinchart]

On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 10:35:21AM +0100, Lad, Prabhakar wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 9:19 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On 19/09/2022 10:08, Lad, Prabhakar wrote:
> > > On Sun, Sep 18, 2022 at 12:06 AM Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > >> 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.

Why should they be disallowed ?

> > 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.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart