Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] media: dt-bindings: imx908: Add Sony IMX908 sensor

[sashiko-bot@kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 3 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Medium] Missing reference to standard video interface devices schema forbids common camera properties.
- [Low] The `port` node does not explicitly require an `endpoint` child node.
- [Low] The fixed I2C address is not properly constrained to 0x1A.
--

--- Patch [1]: [PATCH v2 1/2] media: dt-bindings: imx908: Add Sony IMX908 sensor ---
commit 1a763e011d664f488af190964db4f6527791287a
Author: Lachlan Michael <lachlan.michael@sony.com>

media: dt-bindings: imx908: Add Sony IMX908 sensor

This commit adds device tree bindings for the Sony IMX908 CMOS image sensor.
It defines properties like compatible, reg, clocks, supplies, reset-gpios,
and a port node for CSI-2 output.

> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/i2c/sony,imx908.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/i2c/sony,imx908.yaml
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000000..885aba692c60d
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/i2c/sony,imx908.yaml
> @@ -0,0 +1,105 @@
[ ... ]
> +description:
> +  Sony IMX908 diagonal 6.42 mm (Type 1/2.8) CMOS active pixel type
> +  solid-state image sensor with a square pixel array and 8.39 M
> +  (3856x2176) pixels, supporting MIPI CSI-2 output with
> +  RAW10 and RAW12 formats, configured as either 2 or 4 data lanes.
> +  The I2C address is fixed to 0x1A as per sensor data sheet.
> +
> +properties:
> +  compatible:
> +    const: sony,imx908
> +
> +  reg:
> +    maxItems: 1

[Severity: Low]
Does this allow configuring an incorrect I2C address that will silently pass
validation? Since the description explicitly states the address is fixed to
0x1A, should this enforce it with const: 0x1a instead of just maxItems: 1?

[ ... ]
> +  reset-gpios:
> +    description: Sensor reset (XCLR) GPIO. Active low.
> +    maxItems: 1
> +
> +  port:
> +    $ref: /schemas/graph.yaml#/$defs/port-base
> +    unevaluatedProperties: false
> +
> +    properties:
> +      endpoint:

[Severity: Low]
Does this allow an empty port node without an endpoint to silently pass
validation? Should the port definition explicitly include a
required: [ endpoint ] rule?

> +        $ref: /schemas/media/video-interfaces.yaml#
> +        unevaluatedProperties: false
> +
> +        properties:
> +          data-lanes:
[ ... ]
> +        required:
> +          - data-lanes
> +          - link-frequencies
> +
> +required:
> +  - compatible
> +  - reg
> +  - clocks
> +  - dvdd-supply
> +  - ovdd-supply
> +  - avdd-supply
> +  - port
> +
> +additionalProperties: false

[Severity: Medium]
Will this strict constraint incorrectly reject valid device tree configurations
that include standard camera properties, such as rotation or orientation?
Since video-interface-devices.yaml is not referenced at the root level, it
seems any standard property will be treated as an invalid additional property.

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260806070934.21764-1-lachlan.michael@sony.com?part=1