Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] dt-bindings: leds: backlight: Convert TPS65217 to DT schema

[sashiko-bot@kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Medium] Stale and conflicting regulator text binding not deleted during schema conversion.
- [Low] Missing `required` constraint for `reg` property in regulator child nodes.
--

--- Patch [3]: [PATCH v2 3/3] dt-bindings: leds: backlight: Convert TPS65217 to DT schema ---
commit 0671f0f93114029deaa2c3fee6b27ad8abd2cb2d
Author: Eduard Bostina <egbostina@gmail.com>

dt-bindings: leds: backlight: Convert TPS65217 to DT schema

This commit converts the Texas Instruments TPS65217 backlight binding to YAML
schema. It also documents missing child nodes, interrupt properties, and
updates regulator names to match what the boards use.

> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/backlight/ti,tps65217.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/backlight/ti,tps65217.yaml
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000000..9586e08f1b1fc
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/backlight/ti,tps65217.yaml
> @@ -0,0 +1,123 @@
> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
> +%YAML 1.2
> +---
> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/leds/backlight/ti,tps65217.yaml#
> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
> +
> +title: TPS65217 family of regulators

[Severity: Medium]
Should Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/tps65217.txt also be
deleted in this patch?

The new YAML schema defines the full MFD device, but conflicts with the
undeleted regulator text binding. The old regulator text binding expects
regulator nodes to be named dcdc[1-3] and ldo[1-4], while the new schema
expects regulator@[0-6], which could cause validation inconsistencies.

[ ... ]

> +    patternProperties:
> +      "^regulator@[0-6]$":
> +        type: object
> +        $ref: /schemas/regulator/regulator.yaml#
> +        unevaluatedProperties: false
> +
> +        properties:
> +          reg:
> +            maxItems: 1
> +
> +          regulator-compatible:
> +            $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/string

[Severity: Low]
Does this schema need to specify the reg property as required?

Since these regulator child nodes have a unit address in the pattern
(^regulator@[0-6]$), DT validation could incorrectly pass nodes that contain a
unit address but lack the mandatory reg property without a required block.

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260718215632.3295049-1-egbostina@gmail.com?part=3