Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] ARM: dts: aspeed: ventura2: Add Meta ventura2 BMC

[sashiko-bot@kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 3 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [High] `io_expander8` erroneously requests the same interrupt line (0) as `io_expander0` on the `io_expander7` interrupt controller.
- [Low] Unit addresses for DAC nodes in `&i2c6` contain leading zeros.
- [Low] Unnecessary `#address-cells` and `#size-cells` properties in the `adc@48` node.
--

commit d9f91d3abcec0ae2dcf56a7a83ec66a8e2eb98b9
Author: Kyle Hsieh <kylehsieh1995@gmail.com>

ARM: dts: aspeed: ventura2: Add Meta ventura2 BMC

Add linux device tree entry related to the Meta(Facebook) rmc-node.
The system use an AT2600 BMC. This node is named "ventura2".

> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/aspeed/aspeed-bmc-facebook-ventura2.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/aspeed/aspeed-bmc-facebook-ventura2.dts
> new file mode 100644
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/aspeed/aspeed-bmc-facebook-ventura2.dts

[ ... ]

> +&i2c6 {
> +	status = "okay";
> +
> +	dac@0c {
> +		reg = <0x0c>;

[Severity: Low]
Does this leading zero in the unit address trigger device tree compiler
warnings? Should these nodes be written as dac@c, dac@e, and dac@f instead?

> +		compatible = "adi,ad5612";
> +		vcc-supply = <&p5v_dac_aux>;
> +	};

[ ... ]

> +	io_expander0: gpio@20 {
> +		compatible = "nxp,pca9555";
> +		reg = <0x20>;
> +		gpio-controller;
> +		#gpio-cells = <2>;
> +		interrupt-parent = <&io_expander7>;
> +		interrupts = <0 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW>;

[ ... ]

> +	io_expander8: gpio@24 {
> +		compatible = "nxp,pca9555";
> +		reg = <0x24>;
> +		gpio-controller;
> +		#gpio-cells = <2>;
> +		interrupt-parent = <&io_expander7>;
> +		interrupts = <0 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW>;

[Severity: High]
Will this cause an interrupt conflict between io_expander8 and io_expander0?
Both nodes appear to request interrupt index 0 on the io_expander7 parent,
which might prevent the kernel from reliably demultiplexing the source of
the interrupt.

> +
> +		gpio-line-names =

[ ... ]

> +	adc@48 {
> +		compatible = "ti,ads1015";
> +		reg = <0x48>;
> +		#address-cells = <1>;
> +		#size-cells = <0>;

[Severity: Low]
Are these cell properties necessary here? Since there are no child nodes
defined for this ADC, this will likely trigger a dtc warning about defining
#address-cells without children.

> +	};
> +
> +	temp-sensor@4c {

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260608-ventura2_initial_dts-v5-0-37ee5bcf58b6@gmail.com?part=2