Re: [PATCH v5 1/6] dt-bindings: display: panel: Modify reset gpio number constrain

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 29/07/2026 10:01, Jun Nie wrote:
> Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> 于2026年7月28日周二 04:23写道：
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2026 at 04:08:40PM +0800, Jun Nie wrote:
>>> Some panel support 2 reset gpio, such as Synaptics R63455. So modify the
>>
>> There is no such binding for R63455.
>>
>>> number constrain of gpio to 1 to avoid check failure.
>>
>> What check failure? Please paste actual warnings (but not fake ones).
>>
> It is a review warning from sashiko.
> - [Low] The `reset-gpios` property's `maxItems: 2` constraint
> conflicts with the strictly enforced `maxItems: 1` inherited from
> `panel-common.yaml`.

I don't understand what comment from sashiko has something to do with
some check failure.

Anyway, we do not create commits because of some review. We write them
because there is a reason related to code, products etc.

> 
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jun Nie <jun.nie@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/panel/panel-common.yaml | 2 +-
>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/panel/panel-common.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/panel/panel-common.yaml
>>> index 087415753d606..7c450d2799808 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/panel/panel-common.yaml
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/panel/panel-common.yaml
>>> @@ -119,7 +119,7 @@ properties:
>>>        confused with a backlight enable signal.
>>>
>>>    reset-gpios:
>>> -    maxItems: 1
>>> +    minItems: 1
>>
>> I do not get why all bindings now get completely flexible number of
>> resets. I am pretty sure not all of them constrain that. It's rather
>> your task to check it and explain in commit msg.
>>
>> For example the second random I took to check (ILI7807S) does not
>> restrict, so you just made that binding accepting 1000 reset lines. Why?
> 
> I just want to extend the maxItems from 1 to 2 for my case. Do you have
> any suggestion? Thanks!

I understand what you wanted, but you did not do that. You changed the
property for every case.

Best regards,
Krzysztof