Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: panel: Add JDI NT35596S

[Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>]

On Tue, Sep 22, 2026 at 07:03:29PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2026 at 11:31:27PM +0000, sashiko-bot@kernel.org 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) <robh@kernel.org>
> > 
> > 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