Hi Krzysztof, On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 08:11:18AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > 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? I won't talk for other subsystems, but I can say I see value in explicitly expressing what properties are valid for a device in DT bindings both to inform DT authors and to perform validation on DT sources. That's the whole point of YAML schemas, and I can't see a good reason not to use the tooling we have developed when it has an easy way to do the job. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
