Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] dt-bindings: media: qcom,sm8250-camss: allow JPEG encoder child node

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On 06/07/2026 09:11, Atanas Filipov wrote:
> The CAMSS node uses #address-cells = <2>, #size-cells = <2> and ranges
> to act as a bus for child IP blocks such as the JPEG encoder. Add these
> properties to the binding so that dtbs_check does not reject them.

There are no children, so above are not valid.

> 
> Use unevaluatedProperties: false instead of additionalProperties: false
> so that child nodes are validated against their own schema (matched by

This is not the purpose of unevaluatedProperties and it is not even true.


> compatible) without requiring the parent binding to enumerate each child
> type explicitly. This is the correct approach for a bus-like container
> node and avoids updating the camss binding for every new child device
> added in the future.
> 
> No functional change.

I see significant functional changes - you switched to unevaluatedProperties

> 
> Signed-off-by: Atanas Filipov <atanas.filipov@oss.qualcomm.com>
> ---
>  .../devicetree/bindings/media/qcom,sm8250-camss.yaml   | 10 +++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/qcom,sm8250-camss.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/qcom,sm8250-camss.yaml
> index a509d4bbcb4a..6008938ee369 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/qcom,sm8250-camss.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/qcom,sm8250-camss.yaml
> @@ -102,6 +102,14 @@ properties:
>        - description: IFE1 GDSC - Image Front End, Global Distributed Switch Controller.
>        - description: Titan GDSC - Titan ISP Block, Global Distributed Switch Controller.
>  
> +  "#address-cells":
> +    const: 2
> +
> +  "#size-cells":
> +    const: 2
> +
> +  ranges: true
> +
>    ports:
>      $ref: /schemas/graph.yaml#/properties/ports
>  
> @@ -317,7 +325,7 @@ required:
>    - vdda-phy-supply
>    - vdda-pll-supply
>  
> -additionalProperties: false
> +unevaluatedProperties: false

No, NAK. I do not see how this patch makes any sense.

>  
>  examples:
>    - |


Best regards,
Krzysztof