Re: [PATCH v5 1/6] dt-bindings: rtc: Add pinctrl for S35390A

[sashiko-bot@kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Medium] The `#clock-cells` property is added as a new provider capability but is omitted from the `required` list and the `examples` section, violating subsystem guidelines.
- [Low] Unresolved phandle reference `&int` in the YAML example will cause `dt_binding_check` to fail with a compilation error.
--

--- Patch [1]: [PATCH v5 1/6] dt-bindings: rtc: Add pinctrl for S35390A ---
commit 9114243db5b7e36e694d49f9fc028e6d6ddd5474
Author: Markus Probst <markus.probst@posteo.de>

dt-bindings: rtc: Add pinctrl for S35390A

This commit moves the devicetree bindings for sii,s35390a into its own file.
It adds the necessary properties to configure individual pins via pinctrl,
allowing interrupt signal 1 to be used as a wakeup alarm.

> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/sii,s35390a.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/sii,s35390a.yaml
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000000..d9da3abbbd518
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/sii,s35390a.yaml

[ ... ]

> +    additionalProperties: false
> +
> +required:
> +  - compatible
> +  - reg

[Severity: Medium]
Since "#clock-cells" is defined as a new provider capability in this file,
should it be added to this required list?

Without it, incomplete device tree nodes missing the property will incorrectly
pass schema validation, and dependent subsystems might fail at runtime when
attempting to use the clock capability.

> +
> +unevaluatedProperties: false
> +
> +examples:
> +  - |
> +    i2c {
> +        #address-cells = <1>;
> +        #size-cells = <0>;
> +
> +        rtc@30 {
> +            compatible = "sii,s35390a";
> +            reg = <0x30>;

[Severity: Medium]
Does this example need to include the "#clock-cells" property to pass
schema checks successfully and serve as a complete example for the new
capabilities?

> +            pinctrl-0 = <&rtc_pins_default>;
> +            pinctrl-names = "default";
> +
> +            wakeup-parent = <&int>;

[Severity: Low]
Does this phandle reference a missing label?

The "&int" label doesn't appear to be defined anywhere in the example node.
This unresolved reference will typically cause the device tree compiler to
abort with a fatal build error during make dt_binding_check.

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260820-rtc_s35390a_int1-v5-0-5eb4ef85c6a9@posteo.de?part=1