From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33F95175A68 for ; Thu, 14 May 2026 00:21:34 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778718095; cv=none; b=obP8MTfK9rI+I0i4kf2kN5vgd4KHb5WbVmX5LZjE4qh9dBo5DVf8P2YyZ9pX/PVBRY+75FoIj0OlopvV1ggFw5MHM6T7g804/WM38MPsj9ABv2nA/C1j/KZA/bOvGjo1/wciHaVH+z6ZO87XxzvMgK9rEV95BNonIFtZjeAc+9M= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778718095; c=relaxed/simple; bh=y+v7AmWKij+hD8tte6wJPllmgzRQh2t7b4s3wX2biI4=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=kMo4X3VE3DaZO19YIFt5q1zZM8m0/2hLNfbQ82eU8eebw1Wi8M4OFAYquI9dSrfZwOLnlUVkVf5pKx8gQIj48dd69vV60CRz3OVu3gEkcGFhXEAJpLRAUKOgx2ECPNNGTTuD7iLaVBFlwabL3Pu7YkPGYpy7v+05xVn0q6eLYAU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=DrFpg7g1; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="DrFpg7g1" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 98973C19425; Thu, 14 May 2026 00:21:34 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1778718094; bh=y+v7AmWKij+hD8tte6wJPllmgzRQh2t7b4s3wX2biI4=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=DrFpg7g1ui4GlXIeVkDkLvEIxZwGb7aOIxKjlw2jQ1PpfpZTGs7Q0jspGMZE5+Pnm fFuIpfmpuYCaSKrIDNPFK0xPe8JLBpMcr2eNdKDbPgcdRBJcP7sMDoh8mFq94QZb0k 01lK9NBPbqriKndEEHHp10/f3wyyGB+ocXdBE2L4gOgts+F6q2l95r6WPaXuFI0ibH zVHeH/XhKuRZSdvFIirfSHMLjA7uN+CbeCGNtD8yr2PrxAp5J7U4wLdBDBJmJD9QoT vlXdMbW4vtDv2MRaPbFyMy9oScoVj4iV7y4LMyw39sIYV614dI6cdeTiyJhFJbbv77 SFCQGHi/OQ7Rw== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: firmware: google,gs101-acpm-ipc: document Exynos850 compatible Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Alexey Klimov" Cc: conor+dt@kernel.org, robh@kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, krzk+dt@kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20260513-exynos850-acpm-firmware-support-v1-1-3858d097e433@linaro.org> References: <20260513-exynos850-acpm-firmware-support-v1-1-3858d097e433@linaro.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 14 May 2026 00:21:34 +0000 Message-Id: <20260514002134.98973C19425@smtp.kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(= s) to consider: - [Medium] The device tree binding schema incorrectly applies GS101-specifi= c PMIC constraints to the Exynos850 compatible string, preventing Exynos850= from legally defining its own PMIC child nodes. -- commit 2c572cafffcf509acd05fb4e87547a118f399795 Author: Alexey Klimov dt-bindings: firmware: google,gs101-acpm-ipc: document Exynos850 compatible This commit adds a new compatible string, samsung,exynos850-acpm-ipc, to the ACPM IPC binding for the Exynos850 SoC. The hardware block requires a dedic= ated compatible string due to differences in the initialization data base offset. > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/google,gs101-acpm= -ipc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/google,gs101-acpm-ip= c.yaml > index e68f9c3ca5e26..511c873280fed 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/google,gs101-acpm-ipc.ya= ml > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/google,gs101-acpm-ipc.ya= ml > @@ -22,7 +22,9 @@ description: | > =20 > properties: > compatible: > - const: google,gs101-acpm-ipc > + enum: > + - google,gs101-acpm-ipc > + - samsung,exynos850-acpm-ipc Does this introduce a regression by unintentionally applying GS101-specific PMIC constraints to the Exynos850 hardware? Looking at the rest of the binding schema, pmic-1 is constrained to samsung,s2mpg10-pmic and pmic-2 is constrained to samsung,s2mpg11-pmic. With additionalProperties set to false at the top level and no conditional blocks to distinguish between compatible strings, an Exynos850 device tree cannot legally define its own hardware-specific PMIC child nodes without failing schema validation. Should there be conditional blocks to ensure the GS101 PMIC constraints only apply when google,gs101-acpm-ipc is used? --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260513-exynos850-= acpm-firmware-support-v1-0-3858d097e433@linaro.org?part=3D1