linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] dt-bindings: display: samsung,exynos5-dp: convert to DT Schema

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: <20240321131326.GA1593587-robh@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 08:13:26 -0500
From: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>, Inki Dae <inki.dae@...sung.com>,
	Seung-Woo Kim <sw0312.kim@...sung.com>,
	Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
	Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
	Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
	David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
	Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
	dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] dt-bindings: display: samsung,exynos5-dp: convert to
 DT Schema

On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 08:37:15AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 20/03/2024 18:04, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 07:28:55PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > 
> >> +  clock-names:
> >> +    items:
> >> +      - const: dp
> > 
> >> +  phy-names:
> >> +    items:
> >> +      - const: dp
> > 
> > The items lists here are redundant when you only have a single item, no?
> > Isnt it just
> > phy-names:
> >   const: dp
> 
> Somehow the convention for properties was to define the list. Unlike for
> compatible where we use shorter syntax like you propose. Shall we change
> the approach and use shorter syntax in general?

I guess the difference is -names is usually more than 1 whereas 
compatible is frequently only 1. Either way is fine I think.

Rob