linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 8/9] media: dt-bindings: Add Intel Displayport RX IP

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

Message-ID: <CAM5zL5rs4JyFznnWDLZP_2jwnX+yc+OwwOijGZGsQK+WtpiWKA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 14:11:27 +0100
From: Paweł Anikiel <panikiel@...gle.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc: airlied@...il.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, conor+dt@...nel.org, 
	daniel@...ll.ch, dinguyen@...nel.org, hverkuil-cisco@...all.nl, 
	krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com, 
	mchehab@...nel.org, mripard@...nel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org, 
	tzimmermann@...e.de, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, 
	dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-media@...r.kernel.org, chromeos-krk-upstreaming@...gle.com, 
	ribalda@...omium.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 8/9] media: dt-bindings: Add Intel Displayport RX IP

On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 6:29 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On 26/02/2024 13:43, Paweł 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 one
> >> 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?