From: Waqar Hameed <waqar.hameed@axis.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>
Cc: Sebastian Reichel <sre@kernel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@kernel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>, <kernel@axis.com>,
<linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>, <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: power: supply: Add TI BQ25630 charger
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2026 14:20:59 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <pndqzlu6cb8.a.out@axis.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <18ae59ae-024f-4dfb-ad66-2db90e6f7ed4@kernel.org> (Krzysztof Kozlowski's message of "Thu, 25 Jun 2026 14:10:24 +0200")
On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 14:10 +0200 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote:
> On 25/06/2026 13:27, Waqar Hameed wrote:
>>>> +
>>>> +required:
>>>> + - compatible
>>>> + - reg
>>>> + - interrupts
>>>> + - monitored-battery
>>>> +
>>>> +additionalProperties: false
>>>
>>> And here use 'unevaluatedProperties: false' instead.
>>
>> Hm, reading the documentation [1], `unevaluatedProperties` should be
>> used, because of the "include" of `power-supply.yaml`. I'll change to
>> that.
>>
>> However, there are tons of other places where `additionalProperties` is
>> used instead _with_ a reference to `power-supply.yaml` (which is what I
>> followed). Are all of them actually "wrong" then?
>
> No, they are not wrong, but usually preferred is to allow all properties
> from referenced power-supply schema.
Ah ok, I can see why it's more preferable to be more "permissive" with
`unevaluatedProperties`. Thanks!
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-06-25 12:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-06-18 13:37 [PATCH v2 0/2] Add driver for TI BQ25630 charger Waqar Hameed
2026-06-18 13:37 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: power: supply: Add " Waqar Hameed
2026-06-22 11:06 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2026-06-25 11:27 ` Waqar Hameed
2026-06-25 12:10 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2026-06-25 12:20 ` Waqar Hameed [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=pndqzlu6cb8.a.out@axis.com \
--to=waqar.hameed@axis.com \
--cc=conor+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kernel@axis.com \
--cc=krzk+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=krzk@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=robh@kernel.org \
--cc=sre@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox