On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 5:21 AM Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Rob, > > On Fri, Jul 07, 2023 at 03:06:04PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > The OV5695 binding is almost the same as the OV5693 binding. The only > > difference is 'clock-names' is defined for OV5695. However, the lack of > > clock-names is an omission as the Linux OV5693 driver expects the same > > 'xvclk' clock name. > > > > 'link-frequencies' is required by OV5693, but not OV5695. Just drop it > > from being required. Expressing it conditionally would be ugly. It > > shouldn't really be required either as the driver only supports 1 > > frequency anyways. > > The correct way to address this would appear to be to add link-frequencies > for both of these devices. I think I've seen one or two sensors of this > class (raw, CSI-2/parallel, external clock etc.) with link frequencies > documented as "fixed" --- which is probably a documentation issue more than > anything else. link-frequencies is already supported. It's just a question of being required or not. Adding a property as required is an ABI break (if the OS starts requiring the property). Rob
