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

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

Message-ID: <20240227142440.GA3863852-robh@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 08:24:40 -0600
From: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To: Paweł Anikiel <panikiel@...gle.com>
Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>, 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, 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 Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 02:11:27PM +0100, Paweł Anikiel wrote:
> 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?

Just always use 'ports' rather than complicate things.

Rob