linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] media: dt-bindings: i2c: ovti,ov5640: Drop ref to video-interface-devices.yaml

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <7a24c242-0fc8-ded1-37c9-ec279996a4c8@linaro.org>
Date:   Mon, 19 Sep 2022 12:00:58 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     "Lad, Prabhakar" <prabhakar.csengg@...il.com>
Cc:     Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Maxime Ripard <maxime@...no.tech>,
        Steve Longerbeam <slongerbeam@...il.com>,
        Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
        Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@...renesas.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] media: dt-bindings: i2c: ovti,ov5640: Drop ref to
 video-interface-devices.yaml

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