On Tue, Sep 22, 2026 at 07:03:29PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote: > On Mon, Sep 21, 2026 at 11:31:27PM +0000, [email protected] wrote: > > Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential > > issue(s) to consider: > > - [Low] dt-bindings: incorrect use of additionalProperties instead of > > unevaluatedProperties > > -- > > > > commit e0dc4d49c687f6d5568ce2c31031086acb6cd5e6 > > Author: Rob Herring (Arm) <[email protected]> > > > > dt-bindings: panel: Add JDI NT35596S > > > > This commit adds a new device tree binding schema for the JDI FHD > > NT35596S MIPI-DSI panel. It documents properties such as the DSI reg value, > > reset GPIO, backlight, port, and various power supplies. > > > > > diff --git > > > a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/panel/jdi,fhd-nt35596s.yaml > > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/panel/jdi,fhd-nt35596s.yaml > > > new file mode 100644 > > > index 0000000000000..aefc9ae5d8abd > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ > > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/panel/jdi,fhd-nt35596s.yaml > > > > [ ... ] > > > > > +allOf: > > > + - $ref: panel-common.yaml# > > > + > > > +properties: > > > + compatible: > > > + const: jdi,fhd-nt35596s > > > > [ ... ] > > > > > +required: > > > + - compatible > > > + - reg > > > + - reset-gpios > > > + - vddio-supply > > > + - vddneg-supply > > > + - vddpos-supply > > > + - port > > > + > > > +additionalProperties: false > > > > [Severity: Low] > > Does the use of additionalProperties: false here incorrectly reject standard > > inherited panel properties? > > > > Because this schema references panel-common.yaml in an allOf block, > > additionalProperties does not traverse the $ref references. This blocks > > standard properties like rotation and forces the redundant declaration of > > properties like backlight, reset-gpios, and port just to pass static JSON > > schema validation during a make dt_binding_check. > > > > Should this use unevaluatedProperties: false instead? > > This seems to be the new thing that Sashiko whines about, any binding I > see with additionalProperties: false seems to get complained about.
That and needing labels to be resolved in examples it consistently gets wrong. Probably need to work on the guidance... Rob
