On 04/12/2024 11:09, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > On Wed, Dec 04, 2024 at 09:02:18AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 03, 2024 at 03:41:48PM +0200, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >>> On Tue, Dec 03, 2024 at 09:01:31AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On 03/12/2024 04:31, Abhinav Kumar wrote: >>>>> Document the assigned-clock-parents better for the DP controller node >>>>> to indicate its functionality better. >>>> >>>> >>>> You change the clocks entirely, not "document". I would say that's an >>>> ABI break if it really is a Linux requirement. You could avoid any >>>> problems by just dropping the property from binding. >>> >>> But if you take a look at the existing usage, the proposed change >>> matches the behaviour. So, I'd say, it's really a change that makes >>> documentation follow the actual hardware. >> >> First, this should be in the commit msg, instead of "document better to >> indicate functionality better". >> >> Second, what is the point of documenting it in the first place if you >> can change it and changing has no impact? So maybe just drop? > > So, do you suggest setting both of the property descriptions to true? Or > dropping them completely and using unevaluatedProperties instead of > additionalProperties? > Dropping them entirely, without any changes of additionalProperties. Unless this property was added due to limitation of dtschema? Best regards, Krzysztof
