Re: [PATCH RFC 08/12] dt-bindings: remoteproc: add remoteproc-virtio

[sashiko-bot@kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Medium] dt-bindings: invalid additionalProperties schema rejects standard DT properties
- [Medium] dt-bindings: missing '#' suffix in schema cross-reference
--

commit a056caa69d11bba9e66b2d1ad31564837edf4b61
Author: Francesco Valla <francesco@valla.it>

dt-bindings: remoteproc: add remoteproc-virtio

This commit adds a new devicetree binding to describe remoteproc-provided
virtio devices. It introduces a virtio group node with child vdev nodes to
describe undiscoverable hardware or connect consumers and providers.

> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/remoteproc-virtio.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/remoteproc-virtio.yaml
> new file mode 100644
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/remoteproc-virtio.yaml
[ ... ]
> +    patternProperties:
> +      "^vdev@[0-9a-f]+$":
> +        type: object
> +
> +        properties:
> +          reg:
> +            description: Virtio device index inside the resource table.
> +            maxItems: 1
> +
> +        additionalProperties:
> +          type: object

[Severity: Medium]
Does this additionalProperties block correctly handle standard devicetree
properties? Enforcing "type: object" for all unlisted properties means that
adding standard scalar or array devicetree properties (like "status",
"dma-coherent", or "phandle") to a vdev node will cause dt_binding_check to
fail validation.

> +          $ref: /schemas/virtio/virtio-device.yaml

[Severity: Medium]
Will this schema cross-reference resolve correctly during dt_binding_check?
The $ref path lacks the canonical trailing "#" suffix. According to standard
dt-bindings resolution logic, the $ref path must exactly match the target
schema's $id (which includes the "#"). Omitting it can break the cross
reference system and cause the validation of child nodes to be silently
skipped.

> +          maxItems: 1

[Severity: Medium]
Is the "maxItems: 1" constraint valid here? This JSON schema keyword is valid
only for arrays. Applying it to an object type will silently fail to restrict
the number of child device nodes, rendering the constraint ineffective.

> +
> +        required:
> +          - reg
> +
> +    additionalProperties: false

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260916-remoteproc_virtio_map-v1-0-dac8c5eb4aa9@valla.it?part=8