On Thu, 5 Dec 2024 at 09:33, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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? I don't remember at this point. I think it's worth trying to drop them. -- With best wishes Dmitry
