Re: [PATCH v7 05/12] dt-bindings: display/msm: move common MDSS properties to mdss-common.yaml

[Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>]

On 22/09/2022 14:43, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 22/09/2022 09:53, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Sept 2022 at 10:05, Krzysztof Kozlowski
>> <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 15/09/2022 15:37, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>>> Move properties common to all MDSS DT nodes to the mdss-common.yaml.
>>>>
>>>> This extends qcom,msm8998-mdss schema to allow interconnect nodes, which
>>>> will be added later, once msm8998 gains interconnect support.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
>>>> ---
>>>>   .../bindings/display/msm/dpu-msm8998.yaml     | 41 +--------
>>>>   .../bindings/display/msm/dpu-qcm2290.yaml     | 51 ++----------
>>>>   .../bindings/display/msm/dpu-sc7180.yaml      | 50 ++---------
>>>>   .../bindings/display/msm/dpu-sc7280.yaml      | 50 ++---------
>>>>   .../bindings/display/msm/dpu-sdm845.yaml      | 54 ++----------
>>>>   .../bindings/display/msm/mdss-common.yaml     | 83 +++++++++++++++++++
>>>>   6 files changed, 111 insertions(+), 218 deletions(-)
>>>>   create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/msm/mdss-common.yaml
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/msm/dpu-msm8998.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/msm/dpu-msm8998.yaml
>>>> index 200eeace1c71..67791dbc3b5d 100644
>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/msm/dpu-msm8998.yaml
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/msm/dpu-msm8998.yaml
>>>> @@ -14,20 +14,13 @@ description: |
>>>>     sub-blocks like DPU display controller, DSI and DP interfaces etc. Device tree
>>>>     bindings of MDSS and DPU are mentioned for MSM8998 target.
>>>>
>>>
>>> missing allOf
>>
>> Rob asked to remove this while reviewing v6 ([1]). And indeed the
>> allOf's around a single $ref do not seem to be necessary
> 
> He commented on one of properties, not top-level, maybe it is different
> case for dtschema. In the past it was required, so are you sure
> something changed in dtschema?

I do not know if something has changed or not. But judging from the fact 
that unevaluatedProperties:false do not generate any warnings, the 
referenced schema is processed and applied.

> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
> 

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry