Hi Krzysztof, On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 9:19 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 19/09/2022 10:08, Lad, Prabhakar wrote: > > Hi Laurent, > > > > Thank you for the review. > > > > On Sun, Sep 18, 2022 at 12:06 AM Laurent Pinchart > > <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Prabhakar, > >> > >> Thank you for the patch. > >> > >> On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 02:35:21PM +0100, Prabhakar wrote: > >>> From: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> > >>> video-interface-devices.yaml isn't used so just drop it from the > >>> DT binding doc. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> --- > >>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/i2c/ovti,ov5640.yaml | 3 --- > >>> 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/i2c/ovti,ov5640.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/i2c/ovti,ov5640.yaml > >>> index 540fd69ac39f..ce99aada75ad 100644 > >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/i2c/ovti,ov5640.yaml > >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/i2c/ovti,ov5640.yaml > >>> @@ -9,9 +9,6 @@ title: OmniVision OV5640 Image Sensor Device Tree Bindings > >>> maintainers: > >>> - Steve Longerbeam <slongerbeam@xxxxxxxxx> > >>> > >>> -allOf: > >>> - - $ref: /schemas/media/video-interface-devices.yaml# > >>> - > >> > >> The rotation property listed in this binding uses the definition from > >> video-interface-devices.yaml. I don't think just dropping this is the > >> right solution. Changing additionaProperties to unevaluatedProperties > >> seems a better option. > >> > > Agreed, I missed rotation was used from video-interface-devices.yaml. > > Agreed the changing additionaProperties to unevaluatedProperties seems > > a better option. > > The meaning of unevaluatedProperties:false would be here - accept other > properties (not mentioned here explicitly) from referenced schema. If > this is your actual intention for this binding, it makes sense. But if > the intention in this binding was to disallow these other properties, > then it would be wrong to change to unevaluatedProperties. > Thank you for the clarification. The intention is to disallow the property. > Therefore before sending patches and calling something better or not, > please instead focus on that aspect of referenced schema. > Sure will do, sorry for the noise. Cheers, Prabhakar
