On 14/10/2024 22:29, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 10:47:31AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 14/10/2024 10:31, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: >>> On 14/10/2024 08:45, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> I do not understand the reasoning behind this change at all. I don't >>>> think DT maintainers ever suggested it (in fact, rather opposite: >>>> suggested using unevaluatedProps) and I think is not a consensus of any >>>> talks. >>> >>> No there is not but then, how do you give consistent feedback except >>> proposing something to be a baseline. >>> >>> On the one hand you have upstream additionalProperties: false and >>> unevaluatedProperites: false - it'd be better to have a consistent >>> message on which is to be used. >> >> Well, I am afraid that push towards additionalProps will lead to grow >> common schema (video-interface-devices or video-interfaces) into huge >> one-fit-all binding. And that's not good. >> >> If a common binding for a group of devices encourages you to list its >> subset, then it is not that common. >> >> Solution is to fix that, e.g. split it per classes of devices. > > I think splitting large schemas per class is a good idea, but the > problem will still exist. For instance, if we were to move the > CSI-2-specific properties to a separate schema, that schema would define > clock-lanes, data-lanes and clock-noncontinuous. The clock-lanes and > clock-noncontinuous properties do not apply to every device, how would > we then handle that ? I see three options: Why is this a problem? Why is this a problem here, but not in other subsystems having exactly the same case? Best regards, Krzysztof
