Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: riscv: Add Sspesa and Ssplcofi extensions

[sashiko-bot@kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Low] The `ssplcofi` extension is missing a dependency on `sscofpmf` in its validation rules.
--

--- Patch [1]: [RFC PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: riscv: Add Sspesa and Ssplcofi extensions ---
commit d9c857c632fdf5807bbc999144379f6067037960
Author: Mayuresh Chitale <mayuresh.chitale@oss.qualcomm.com>

dt-bindings: riscv: Add Sspesa and Ssplcofi extensions

Document the RISC-V Performance Event Sampling extensions Sspesa and Ssplcofi
in the ISA extensions binding. This adds descriptions for both extensions
and a dependency rule requiring Sspesa when Ssplcofi is present.

> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/extensions.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/extensions.yaml
> index 5ffc40d599c02..f316b93754ff7 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/extensions.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/extensions.yaml
[ ... ]
> @@ -934,6 +946,13 @@ properties:
>                  const: smnpm
>              - contains:
>                  const: ssnpm
> +      # Ssplcofi depends on Sspesa
> +      - if:
> +          contains:
> +            const: ssplcofi
> +        then:
> +          contains:
> +            const: sspesa

[Severity: Low]
Should this validation block also enforce a dependency on the base sscofpmf
extension?

Without requiring sscofpmf, an invalid device tree configuration declaring
ssplcofi without the base extension could silently pass dtbs_check.

>        # Za64rs and Ziccrse depend on Zalrsc or A
>        - if:
>            contains:

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260817160222.3313295-1-mayuresh.chitale@oss.qualcomm.com?part=1