Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] dt-bindings: mfd: Document Skyworks AAT2870

[sashiko-bot@kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Low] dt-bindings: missing `type: object` constraints for child nodes
--

commit 44544968b5bc5130f1768962ce3f85c8bc12cfad
Author: Svyatoslav Ryhel <clamor95@gmail.com>

dt-bindings: mfd: Document Skyworks AAT2870

Document Skyworks AAT2870 LED Backlight Driver and Multiple LDO Lighting
Management Unit.

> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/skyworks,aat2870.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/skyworks,aat2870.yaml
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000000..014678616076f
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/skyworks,aat2870.yaml
[ ... ]
> +  vin-supply:
> +    description: Regulator providing power to the "IN" pin.
> +
> +  backlight:
> +    $ref: /schemas/leds/backlight/common.yaml#
> +    unevaluatedProperties: false

[Severity: Low]
Does this node definition need an explicit type: object?

Since this backlight property references /schemas/leds/backlight/common.yaml#
which does not define type: object at its root, the dt_binding_check schema
validation tool will fail with a type is missing error when checking this
new schema. In dt-schema, properties representing child nodes must explicitly
declare type: object if it is not inherited from a $ref.

[ ... ]
> +    patternProperties:
> +      "^(ldo-(a|b|c|d))$":
> +        $ref: /schemas/regulator/regulator.yaml#
> +        unevaluatedProperties: false

[Severity: Low]
Similarly, do these regulator subnodes matching ldo-[a-d] require a
type: object constraint?

Like the backlight node above, the referenced external schema
(/schemas/regulator/regulator.yaml#) does not inherently provide type: object,
which will also result in validation failures.

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20261004164121.193514-1-clamor95@gmail.com?part=1