Message-ID: <sashiko-outbox-208675@kernel.org>
From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: example-schema: Show example of
 dependentRequired
Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev
To: "Krzysztof Kozlowski" <krzysztof.kozlowski@oss.qualcomm.com>, devicetree@vger.kernel.org
Cc: robh@kernel.org, conor+dt@kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <20261111090449.53511-2-krzysztof.kozlowski@oss.qualcomm.com>
References: <20261111090449.53511-2-krzysztof.kozlowski@oss.qualcomm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2026 09:14:53 +0000
Precedence: list

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential
issue to consider:
- [Low] dt-bindings: example-schema: conflicting and duplicate
  dependentRequired example
--

commit a3f4513191420436a3b3975020d020b961833f59
Author: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@oss.qualcomm.com>

dt-bindings: example-schema: Show example of dependentRequired

This commit adds a dependentRequired example to example-schema.yaml to
document the preferred way to express conditional property requirements.

> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/example-schema.yaml b/Docu=
mentation/devicetree/bindings/example-schema.yaml
> index b04f3cc4312c0..0c78eda67a2e6 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/example-schema.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/example-schema.yaml
> @@ -217,6 +217,14 @@ required:
>    - interrupts
>    - interrupt-controller
> =20
> +# Properties might be required only if some other property is present.
> +# dependentRequired is a shorter and preferred way to express this, inst=
ead of
> +# if:then: block.
> +dependentRequired:
> +  # foo-gpios is not a required property, but if present, then foo-suppl=
y must
> +  # be provided as well.
> +  foo-gpios: [ foo-supply ]

[Severity: Low]
Does requiring foo-supply when foo-gpios is present conflict with the allOf
conditional block right below?

Documentation/devicetree/bindings/example-schema.yaml:allOf:
    then:
      required:
        - foo-supply
    else:
      # If otherwise the property is not allowed:
      properties:
        foo-supply: false

That block already makes foo-supply unconditionally required on
vendor,soc2-ip and forbids foo-supply on all other compatibles, which makes
it impossible to specify foo-gpios on any compatible other than
vendor,soc2-ip.

Also, should this replace the existing dependencies block just above
required (and the comment in allOf referring to dependencies) rather than
leaving two top-level keywords in the example schema that demonstrate the
same construct?

--=20
Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20261111090449.5351=
1-2-krzysztof.kozlowski@oss.qualcomm.com?part=3D1