Re: [PATCH 2/4] dt-bindings: mfd: qcom,spmi-pmic: Document haptics device

[sashiko-bot@kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Low] Use of a wildcard ('x') in the compatible string.
--

commit 24bf9f2257f4052d27a53163621c8f5173fe1da8
Author: Fenglin Wu <fenglin.wu@oss.qualcomm.com>

dt-bindings: input: Add binding for Qualcomm SPMI PMIC haptics

Add binding document for the haptics module inside Qualcomm PMIH010X.

> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/qcom,spmi-haptics.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/qcom,spmi-haptics.yaml
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000000..0e26d68563dcd
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/qcom,spmi-haptics.yaml
> @@ -0,0 +1,119 @@
> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause
> +%YAML 1.2
> +---

[ ... ]

> +properties:
> +  compatible:
> +    const: qcom,pmih010x-haptics

[Severity: Low]
Does this introduce a regression by using a wildcard character ('x') in the
compatible string?

Device tree specifications generally forbid wildcards in compatible strings.
Should the specific model name of the first chip in the family
(e.g., "qcom,pmih0108-haptics") be used instead of a wildcard?

[ ... ]

> +examples:
> +  - |
> +    #include <dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/irq.h>
> +
> +    pmic {
> +        #address-cells = <1>;
> +        #size-cells = <0>;
> +
> +        haptics@f000 {
> +            compatible = "qcom,pmih010x-haptics";

[Severity: Low]
Does this example share the same regression with the wildcard compatible
string?

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260616-qcom-spmi-haptics-v1-0-d24e422de6b4@oss.qualcomm.com?part=2