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: <6f832ce4-03d3-46bc-afcc-86983b2ec47a@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2025 14:55:40 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
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 02/04/2025 14:46, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> 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.
What do you mean by description? I pasted code. The *exact* code to use.
Benjamin used different code. Two times I asked why you cannot use the
code I pasted. Still no answer.

Best regards,
Krzysztof