> -----Original Message-----
> From: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 4:26 AM
> To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: ishikawa yuji(石川 悠司 ○ＲＤＣ□ＡＩＴＣ○ＥＡ開)
> <yuji2.ishikawa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xxxxxxxxx>; Mauro
> Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxx>; iwamatsu nobuhiro(岩松 信洋 □Ｓ
> ＷＣ◯ＡＣＴ) <nobuhiro1.iwamatsu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Rob Herring
> <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; Rafael J . Wysocki
> <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>; Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx>;
> linux-media@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/6] dt-bindings: media: platform: visconti: Add Toshiba
> Visconti Video Input Interface bindings
>
> Hi Krzysztof,
>
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 06:01:27PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On 17/01/2023 16:58, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 04:42:51PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > >> On 17/01/2023 16:26, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> +
> > >>>> + clock-lanes:
> > >>>> + description: VIIF supports 1 clock line
> > >>>
> > >>> s/line/lane/
Sorry for a late reply.
I'll fix the description.
> > >>>
> > >>>> + const: 0
> > >>>
> > >>> I would also add
> > >>>
> > >>> clock-noncontinuous: true
> > >>> link-frequencies: true
> > >>>
> > >>> to indicate that the above two properties are used by this device.
> > >>
> > >> No, these are coming from other schema and there is never need to
> > >> mention some property to indicate it is more used than other case.
> > >> None of the bindings are created such way, so this should not be
> exception.
> > >
> > > There are some bindings that do so, but that may not be a good
> > > enough reason, as there's a chance I wrote those myself :-)
> > >
> > > I would have sworn that at some point in the past the schema
> > > wouldn't have validated the example with this omitted. I'm not sure
> > > if something changed or if I got this wrong.
> >
> > You probably think about case when using additionalProperties:false,
> > where one has to explicitly list all valid properties. But not for
> > unevaluatedProperties:false.
>
> Possibly, yes.
>
> > > video-interfaces.yaml defines lots of properties applicable to
> > > endpoints. For a given device, those properties should be required
> >
> > required:
> > - foo
> >
> > > (easy, that's defined in the bindings), optional,
> >
> > by default (with unevaluatedProperties:false) or explicitly mention
> > "foo: true (with additionalProperties:false)
> >
> > > or forbidden. How do
> >
> > foo: false (with unevaluatedProperties:false) or by default (with
> > additionalProperties:false)
>
> I think we should default to the latter. video-interfaces.yaml contains lots of
> properties endpoint properties, most bindings will use less than half of them, so
> having to explicitly list all the ones that are not used with "foo: false" would be
> quite inconvenient. Furthermore, I expect more properties to be added to
> video-interfaces.yaml over time, and those shouldn't be accepted by default in
> existing bindings.
>
I caught up with this discussion after some exercise on JSON schema validator.
I'll remove "unevaluatedProperties: false" at the "endpoint" and add "aditionalProperties: false" instead.
Furthermore, I'll explicitly declare required properties (required: ["foo"]) and optional properties (properties: {foo: true}) for Visconti.
Is this correct understanding?
Are these changes also applied to "port", which is the parent node of the "endpoint" ?
> > > we differentiate between the latter two cases ?
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Laurent Pinchart
Regards,
Yuji Ishikawa
