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
