linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] media: dt-bindings: Add ST VD55G1 camera sensor binding

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: <20250402124605.GB13181@pendragon.ideasonboard.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2025 15:46:05 +0300
From: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
Cc: Benjamin Mugnier <benjamin.mugnier@...s.st.com>,
	Sylvain Petinot <sylvain.petinot@...s.st.com>,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
	Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
	linux-media@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] media: dt-bindings: Add ST VD55G1 camera sensor
 binding

On Wed, Apr 02, 2025 at 12:27:08PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 02/04/2025 11:41, Benjamin Mugnier wrote:
> > On 4/2/25 11:38, Benjamin Mugnier wrote:
> >> On 4/2/25 11:11, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >>> On 02/04/2025 10:34, Benjamin Mugnier wrote:
> >>>> Hi Krzysztof,
> >>>>
> >>>> On 4/2/25 09:08, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, Apr 01, 2025 at 01:05:58PM +0200, Benjamin Mugnier wrote:
> >>>>>> +    properties:
> >>>>>> +      endpoint:
> >>>>>> +        $ref: /schemas/media/video-interfaces.yaml#
> >>>>>> +        unevaluatedProperties: false
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> +        properties:
> >>>>>> +          data-lanes:
> >>>>>> +            items:
> >>>>>> +              const: 1
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Not what I asked. Now you miss number of items. Just use the syntax I
> >>>>> proposed. Or was there any issue with it?
> >>>>
> >>>> No issue I just misunderstood and thought const: 1 was impliying
> >>>> maxItems: 1. I'll add maxItems back.
> >>>
> >>> That's just longer way to express what I asked for. So I repeat the
> >>> question: why not using the syntax I asked for?
> >>
> >> I guess I didn't understand what you asked for.
> >> May I ask you to write it ? That will help me a lot.
> > 
> > By 'it' I mean the binding.
>
> I wrote it last time. I don't think that copying the same here would
> change anything. If I can look at v1, you can do as well.

Reading your comment on v1, I would have come up with the exact same
result as Benjamin's v2. I can't figure out what alternative description
you meant.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart