Message ID | 20250401-b4-vd55g1-v2-0-0c8ab8a48c55@foss.st.com |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | media: Add support for ST VD55G1 camera sensor | expand |
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? > + > + link-frequencies: > + maxItems: 1 > + items: > + minimum: 125000000 > + maximum: 600000000 Best regards, Krzysztof
Hi Krzysztof, On 4/2/25 09:08, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On Tue, Apr 01, 2025 at 01:05:58PM +0200, Benjamin Mugnier wrote: >> Also update MAINTAINERS file accordingly. > > Since there will be one more version: > > A nit, subject: drop second/last, redundant "binding". The > "dt-bindings" prefix is already stating that these are bindings. Thanks for pointing this out, I'll remove the spurious "binding" then. > See also: > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.7-rc8/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.rst#L18 > > Best regards, > Krzysztof >
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. > >> >> Best regards, >> Krzysztof >
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. Best regards, Krzysztof
On Wed, Apr 02, 2025 at 03:46:05PM +0300, 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. The '-' or lack of is the key part here. That's easy to miss visually and the significance is missed for newcomers. It is worth mentioning the significance when that's the issue even if providing the exact code to use. Rob