Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-83292-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240221160215.484151-1-panikiel@google.com> <20240221160215.484151-9-panikiel@google.com>
 <13aeb2ff-72f4-49d9-b65e-ddc31569a936@linaro.org> <CAM5zL5q0oKoTMR0jSwYVAChCOJ9iKYPRFiU1vH4qDqhHALKz4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <e1fd8cbd-060b-4d15-8256-6d8dbba545da@linaro.org> <CAM5zL5qxBM1xQ__t86gxUKMy8O3BzoCe_vTFxxsqFq7mw4-8EQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <890afb05-1b19-47b2-bfd8-5f6de0caeda3@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <890afb05-1b19-47b2-bfd8-5f6de0caeda3@linaro.org>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Pawe=C5=82_Anikiel?= <panikiel@google.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 14:11:27 +0100
Message-ID: <CAM5zL5rs4JyFznnWDLZP_2jwnX+yc+OwwOijGZGsQK+WtpiWKA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 8/9] media: dt-bindings: Add Intel Displayport RX IP
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
Cc: airlied@gmail.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, conor+dt@kernel.org, 
	daniel@ffwll.ch, dinguyen@kernel.org, hverkuil-cisco@xs4all.nl, 
	krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org, maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com, 
	mchehab@kernel.org, mripard@kernel.org, robh+dt@kernel.org, 
	tzimmermann@suse.de, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, 
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-media@vger.kernel.org, chromeos-krk-upstreaming@google.com, 
	ribalda@chromium.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 6:29=E2=80=AFPM Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On 26/02/2024 13:43, Pawe=C5=82 Anikiel wrote:
> >>>>> +  intel,max-stream-count:
> >>>>> +    $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32
> >>>>> +    description: Max stream count configuration parameter
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +  port:
> >>>>> +    $ref: /schemas/graph.yaml#/properties/port
> >>>>> +    description: SST main link
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't understand why you have both port and ports. Shouldn't this =
be
> >>>> under ports?
> >>>
> >>> I put both so that you can use the shorter port property when the
> >>> device only has one port (i.e. no MST support). It would work fine
> >>> without it. If you think that's unnecessary, I can remove it (and use
> >>> the ports property even if there is only one).
> >>
> >> No, it is fine, but then you need allOf: which will restrict to only o=
ne
> >> of them: either port or ports.
> >
> > There already is an allOf below that says that ports is required for
> > MST support and port is required otherwise. Isn't this enough?
>
> Add both port and ports and see if it is enough.

Ok, I see. I tried and this seems to work:

oneOf:
  - required:
      - port
  - required:
      - ports

And that would make the if/else with port and ports below not needed.
What do you think?