Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: mfd: qcom,pm8008: make the interrupt line optional

[sashiko-bot@kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Medium] Missing mutual dependency between `interrupt-controller` and `#interrupt-cells` allows incomplete device tree nodes to pass schema validation.
--

commit 06521a0a86f05dc0e7f24260abb779ba95c5ab55
Author: Oleg Keri <okerixx@gmail.com>

dt-bindings: mfd: qcom,pm8008: make the interrupt line optional

The PM8008 raises an interrupt for its own status, its temperature alarm
and its two GPIOs, but the pin does not have to be routed. This commit drops
interrupts, interrupt-controller, and #interrupt-cells from the required list
and adds dependentRequired constraints.

> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom,pm8008.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom,pm8008.yaml
> index 0c6e1870db1dc..db1592e115e8c 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom,pm8008.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom,pm8008.yaml
[ ... ]
> @@ -97,10 +96,12 @@ required:
>    - gpio-controller
>    - "#gpio-cells"
>    - gpio-ranges
> -  - interrupt-controller
> -  - "#interrupt-cells"
>    - "#thermal-sensor-cells"
>  
> +dependentRequired:
> +  interrupt-controller: [ interrupts ]
> +  "#interrupt-cells": [ interrupts ]
> +

[Severity: Medium]
Does this regression allow incomplete device tree nodes to pass schema
validation?

The missing mutual dependency between interrupt-controller and
#interrupt-cells means a device tree node could provide interrupt-controller
but omit #interrupt-cells (or vice versa) and still pass validation.

Such a node would fail to function correctly at runtime as an interrupt
provider. Should these two properties be required together?

>  additionalProperties: false
>  
>  examples:

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260908130745.2545-1-okerixx@gmail.com?part=1