Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider: - [Low] The schema allows `sram-supply` to be specified for RK3576 even though the hardware does not support it. --
--- Patch [1]: [RFC PATCH v2 1/8] dt-bindings: npu: rockchip: add rockchip,rk3576-rknn-core --- commit af7a16605153304ec36efac86040bd1175195ecd Author: Jiaxing Hu <[email protected]> dt-bindings: npu: rockchip: add rockchip,rk3576-rknn-core This commit documents the RK3576 NPU core by adding it to the compatible enum. It also moves sram-supply from the globally required list to an if-then block specifically for RK3588, as the RK3576 does not use it. > diff --git > a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/npu/rockchip,rk3588-rknn-core.yaml > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/npu/rockchip,rk3588-rknn-core.yaml > index caca2a4903cd1..985cde6b2f523 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/npu/rockchip,rk3588-rknn-core.yaml > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/npu/rockchip,rk3588-rknn-core.yaml [ ... ] > @@ -75,7 +76,16 @@ required: > - resets > - reset-names > - npu-supply > - - sram-supply > + > +allOf: > + - if: > + properties: > + compatible: > + contains: > + const: rockchip,rk3588-rknn-core > + then: > + required: > + - sram-supply [Severity: Low] Does this change inadvertently allow sram-supply to be specified for RK3576? Because sram-supply is defined in the top-level properties block, removing it from the global required list makes it implicitly optional for RK3576, rather than forbidding it. Device tree nodes for RK3576 could mistakenly include sram-supply without triggering a validation error during dt_binding_check. Would it be appropriate to add an else block setting sram-supply: false to fully restrict it? > additionalProperties: false -- Sashiko AI review ยท https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/[email protected]?part=1
