On 19/04/2023 00:26, Rob Herring wrote: > On Sun, Apr 16, 2023 at 05:39:29PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> Few panel bindings for dual-link connections just type "ports: true", >> which does not enforce any type. Add common definition of ports, so the >> type will be fixed. >> >> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> --- >> >> Cc: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> .../bindings/display/panel/panel-common.yaml | 16 ++++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/panel/panel-common.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/panel/panel-common.yaml >> index 5b38dc89cb21..ad62d34e6fa3 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/panel/panel-common.yaml >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/panel/panel-common.yaml >> @@ -70,6 +70,16 @@ properties: >> port: >> $ref: /schemas/graph.yaml#/properties/port >> >> + # For dual-link connections >> + ports: >> + $ref: /schemas/graph.yaml#/properties/ports >> + patternProperties: >> + "^port@[0-9a-f]+$": >> + $ref: /schemas/graph.yaml#/$defs/port-base > > This allows any undocumented property. Yes, which I hope the device schema (using this panel-common) will narrow with additionalProperties: false. I can make it explicit: additionalProperties: true. Otherwise, how do I allow custom properties like: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/panel/advantech,idk-2121wr.yaml > >> + >> + required: >> + - port@0 >> + > > I don't think this should be added here because users must define what > each port is. With it here, we're going to validate the nodes twice as > well. Same can be said for 'port' though. It can't be extended though. So you propose to drop entire "ports" here and expect every panel schema to define it instead? Best regards, Krzysztof
