From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C859D3EFD02 for ; Thu, 28 May 2026 12:36:56 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1779971817; cv=none; b=XWGKiZQj3ZCoAyvUIcfp6bp6yJIefL7Gkq5Kzqtigv83otRCHJyYqd/c+FTVQZe4IJE2Etv00BcPnXck1hhEm5/+K2WmVI8KSOV9hBd5IChJO9bMJdJAAE9OnpLjfPsq3W+wDDU8j8OrOBEIk2qtJUi7oLpA2MUgLjuufwb4Qew= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1779971817; c=relaxed/simple; bh=4Bw5PQSNIb+4cHUyfspc5hYuIAlRiJlq+FeHPVBWUuM=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=bIZbXpf31fog+b9iQHJnyZT4uVApSuw81ODdoTgzJ/F23mbGRYsR1ROYMjMrdZq5Mn2akvwdrfeLC+tpzRmaAaY9lXuKDa1c4tXD9qEzdsE9bluoVDDAtGicl30+mw3CIPw3BOmJ4kMM9NCEuyy8DgkgAsGcZICTeAG41Wk8NvI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=UwPMPVQT; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="UwPMPVQT" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4F44F1F00A3A; Thu, 28 May 2026 12:36:56 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1779971816; bh=4Bw5PQSNIb+4cHUyfspc5hYuIAlRiJlq+FeHPVBWUuM=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=UwPMPVQTBprFrBRPCoPiJ7cJKSY/5Cc3DAw8Yoo9lkLiMl2Bbu99t7gjTA6sqo9WU rAKOvL1yKAWp8Ed3AOIea+8pNFCsvVqsIkAA1/nNAuGPvqA+PZ32dEVop5i8rkemQd 5ebdrIVJPM8yjvtTabsewbwxteA2Cok2GDrkadHSdjB5myGw770K13JgbIXzzNl/ss XQgv5yYFxI2TctlNfDVfROofQUY57Rsx0KPgmesktDbo2P0ZsSyfOv+Mcfo9uLgc/w M94XLakRayzm6y8QJaKS539P7bQP3w7x0SGvLZrITOj+q2EpwbSUQXtZCHgzyg4bTy 7KcAcKLSOFTuQ== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] dt-bindings: clock: qcom: Add Qualcomm Shikra Display clock controller Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Imran Shaik" Cc: robh@kernel.org, conor+dt@kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20260528-shikra-dispcc-gpucc-v2-2-953f246a0fbb@oss.qualcomm.com> References: <20260528-shikra-dispcc-gpucc-v2-2-953f246a0fbb@oss.qualcomm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 28 May 2026 12:36:55 +0000 Message-Id: <20260528123656.4F44F1F00A3A@smtp.kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(= s) to consider: - [Medium] The conditional schema for 'qcom,shikra-dispcc' fails to enforce= the presence of its 3 newly required input clocks because `minItems` is no= t overridden in the `then` block. -- Note: Due to system recitation restrictions, this review does not use the standard inline diff quoting format. Instead, a free-form summary of the findings is provided below. commit 6ba505cef231c7d845e3f3af3b33919e232b9b05 Author: Imran Shaik dt-bindings: clock: qcom: Add Qualcomm Shikra Display clock controller This commit adds the Shikra Display clock controller by updating the existing QCM2290 DISPCC bindings. It uses a conditional schema to support the additional clocks required for Shikra while preserving QCM2290 constraints. [Severity: Medium] In the conditional block added to differentiate qcom,shikra-dispcc from qcom,qcm2290-dispcc, does this introduce a regression in schema validation by missing explicit minItems constraints for the clocks and clock-names arrays? The top-level schema defines minItems: 6 and maxItems: 9. In json-schema, providing an items list in a conditional block validates the elements at those indices but does not implicitly enforce the overall array length. Could a device tree node for qcom,shikra-dispcc that provides only 6 clocks silently pass validation because it satisfies the top-level minItems constraint? To properly enforce the 9 required clocks for Shikra, should minItems: 9 be explicitly added to both clocks and clock-names inside the then block? Similarly, could maxItems: 6 be added to the else block to ensure qcom,qcm2290-dispcc remains restricted to exactly 6 clocks? --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260528-shikra-dis= pcc-gpucc-v2-0-953f246a0fbb@oss.qualcomm.com?part=3D2