Hi Krzysztof, On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 01:51:43PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 15/10/2024 13:28, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > 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. > > I understand. The benefit, which you see, comes with complexity of the > binding and need of listing properties. I agree, the benefit comes at a cost of additional complexity in the bindings. For me the benefit outweights the cost here as I find the cost to be relatively small, but I understand that this is a personal opinion. > We do not enforce such rules (narrowing common schema in very strict > way) in other subsystems, maybe with exception of input and touchscreen > devices, but there common schema is quite big. And DT maintainers > suggested to drop such code even for these, BTW. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
