Re: [PATCH 1/5] ARM: dts: ls1021a-moxa-uc-8410a: add led suffix to fix CHECK_DTBS warnings

[sashiko-bot@kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Low] Appending the '-led' suffix to non-LED hardware components artificially bypasses DT schema validation while falsely describing the hardware.
--

--- Patch [1]: [PATCH 1/5] ARM: dts: ls1021a-moxa-uc-8410a: add led suffix to fix CHECK_DTBS warnings ---
commit 74fab37b2f25e9ccf8e82f5b1103b80dbcd12253
Author: Frank Li <Frank.Li@nxp.com>

ARM: dts: ls1021a-moxa-uc-8410a: add led suffix to fix CHECK_DTBS warnings

This commit appends the -led suffix to several nodes within a gpio-leds
block to resolve dtbs_check warnings.

> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/nxp/ls/ls1021a-moxa-uc-8410a.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/nxp/ls/ls1021a-moxa-uc-8410a.dts
> index d2cae8c7d7a61..8efe6b615ca85 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/nxp/ls/ls1021a-moxa-uc-8410a.dts
> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/nxp/ls/ls1021a-moxa-uc-8410a.dts
> @@ -40,13 +40,13 @@ reg_3p3v: regulator-3p3v {
>  	leds {
>  		compatible = "gpio-leds";
>  
> -		cel-pwr {
> +		cel-pwr-led {
>  			label = "UC8410A:CEL-PWR";
>  			gpios = <&gpio3 27 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
>  			default-state = "off";
>  		};
>  
> -		cel-reset {
> +		cel-reset-led {
>  			label = "UC8410A:CEL-RESET";
>  			gpios = <&gpio3 28 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
>  			default-state = "off";
>  		};

[Severity: Low]
Does appending the -led suffix here artificially bypass DT schema validation
while falsely describing the hardware?

Placing these cellular modem control lines under the gpio-leds compatible
node was existing behavior, but renaming them to include -led simply hides
the validation warning from the linter instead of migrating the pins to an
appropriate modem or power controller abstraction.

> @@ -58,13 +58,13 @@ str-led {
>  			linux,default-trigger = "mmc0";
>  		};
>  
> -		sw-ready {
> +		sw-ready-led {
>  			label = "UC8410A:GREEN:SWRDY";
>  			gpios = <&gpio0 18 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>  			default-state = "on";
>  		};
>  
> -		beeper {
> +		beeper-led {
>  			label = "UC8410A:BEEP";
>  			gpios = <&gpio0 20 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>  			default-state = "off";
>  		};

[Severity: Low]
Is it correct to label an acoustic device as an LED?

Similar to the cellular GPIOs above, using gpio-leds for a beeper is an
existing inaccuracy, but renaming it to beeper-led strictly to satisfy
the regex solidifies an incorrect hardware description. Would it be better
to migrate this to use gpio-beeper instead?

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260708-ls-dts-warning-v1-0-5daa24061c31@nxp.com?part=1