Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <7a24c242-0fc8-ded1-37c9-ec279996a4c8@linaro.org>
Date:   Mon, 19 Sep 2022 12:00:58 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.13.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH] media: dt-bindings: i2c: ovti,ov5640: Drop ref to
 video-interface-devices.yaml
Content-Language: en-US
To:     "Lad, Prabhakar" <prabhakar.csengg@gmail.com>
Cc:     Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech>,
        Steve Longerbeam <slongerbeam@gmail.com>,
        Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com>,
        Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xs4all.nl>, linux-media@vger.kernel.org,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com>
References: <20220916133521.73183-1-prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com>
 <YyZS38Wo7rDsNRm2@pendragon.ideasonboard.com>
 <CA+V-a8vvNHFt818wryyuhWxPtay4czjWXiH=AWEKiJ1AzB46mA@mail.gmail.com>
 <fc1c075d-e20d-9395-d168-8cfe530f77ad@linaro.org>
 <CA+V-a8uMyU89rufmqWiGFqpVjFPvHBeVeSd1Wt07eWZo1X+Bgw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <CA+V-a8uMyU89rufmqWiGFqpVjFPvHBeVeSd1Wt07eWZo1X+Bgw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 19/09/2022 11:35, Lad, Prabhakar wrote:
>>>> 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.

Which property? Can you be specific?


Best regards,
Krzysztof