linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: display: Add bindings for EBBG FT8719

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <0fdfcc16-7b80-47e9-709c-648d3a0cd6fc@linaro.org>
Date:   Mon, 9 May 2022 08:38:51 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Joel Selvaraj <jo@...amily.in>
Cc:     airlied@...ux.ie, clabbe@...libre.com, daniel@...ll.ch,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        fanghao11@...wei.com, linus.walleij@...aro.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux@...pel-privat.de,
        phone-devel@...r.kernel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org, sam@...nborg.org,
        shawnguo@...nel.org, stano.jakubek@...il.com,
        thierry.reding@...il.com, ~postmarketos/upstreaming@...ts.sr.ht
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: display: Add bindings for EBBG FT8719

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