Re: [PATCH v5 1/6] dt-bindings: media: platform: visconti: Add Toshiba Visconti Video Input Interface bindings

[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