Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
Message-ID: <0fdfcc16-7b80-47e9-709c-648d3a0cd6fc@linaro.org>
Date:   Mon, 9 May 2022 08:38:51 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: display: Add bindings for EBBG FT8719
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Joel Selvaraj <jo@jsfamily.in>
Cc:     airlied@linux.ie, clabbe@baylibre.com, daniel@ffwll.ch,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
        fanghao11@huawei.com, linus.walleij@linaro.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux@rempel-privat.de,
        phone-devel@vger.kernel.org, robh+dt@kernel.org, sam@ravnborg.org,
        shawnguo@kernel.org, stano.jakubek@gmail.com,
        thierry.reding@gmail.com, ~postmarketos/upstreaming@lists.sr.ht
References: <2ab35af2-b067-4243-35ed-a592a7046374@linaro.org>
 <BY5PR02MB7009A604AC912DC78FAF42A5D9C69@BY5PR02MB7009.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <BY5PR02MB7009A604AC912DC78FAF42A5D9C69@BY5PR02MB7009.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 09/05/2022 07:08, Joel Selvaraj wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof Kozlowski,
> 
> A quick question.
> 
> On 07/05/22 21:02, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>  >> +  backlight: true
>  >> +  port: true
>  >
>  > Both should not be needed - they come from panel-common.yaml. They might
>  > stay in list
> 
> I see that almost 54 panels mention "port: true" and 46 panels mention
> "backlight: true". Almost all panels refer the panel-common.yaml too.

They need them only if they use "additionalProperties:false".
> 
> So I think specifying them as true is just for extra clarity that
> these properties are usually used by this panel? But I am not very sure.

If they don't use additionalProperties:false, then the explanation could be:
1. Just for clarity as you say, because they might want to require
property/node which is listed in the properties, otherwise it is a bit
confusing.
2. They were copying first example without actually checking...

> Should I leave them be? or it's still recommended to remove them?

It's not a big deal and I do not have strong opinion, but I would
propose to remove them from list of properties and still keep port in
"required"


Best regards,
Krzysztof