Re: [PATCH net-next v5 2/9] dt-bindings: net: lan9645x: add LAN9645X switch bindings

[sashiko-bot@kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Medium] The binding lacks an `mdio` child node definition for configuring the integrated PHYs.
- [Low] The YAML example references undefined phandles, which will cause `dt_binding_check` to fail.
--

commit dfc8fe1c18d2c902cfb1fb3287b2bba778b46c7f
Author: Jens Emil Schulz Østergaard <jensemil.schulzostergaard@microchip.com>

dt-bindings: net: lan9645x: add LAN9645X switch bindings

Add bindings for LAN9645X switch. We use a fallback compatible for the
smallest SKU microchip,lan96455s-switch.

> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/microchip,lan96455s-switch.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/microchip,lan96455s-switch.yaml
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000000..043fb48922b41
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/microchip,lan96455s-switch.yaml
> @@ -0,0 +1,111 @@

[ ... ]

> +required:
> +  - compatible
> +  - reg
> +  - ethernet-ports
> +
> +unevaluatedProperties: false

Since the description mentions the hardware has five integrated PHYs, how are
they expected to be configured?

Because this schema sets unevaluatedProperties: false at the root and does
not define an mdio property, any attempt to add an mdio node for the PHYs
in a device tree will fail schema validation. 

Does the binding need to explicitly document and allow an mdio node?

> +
> +examples:
> +  - |
> +    ethernet-switch@4000 {
> +        compatible = "microchip,lan96459f-switch", "microchip,lan96455s-switch";
> +        reg = <0x4000 0x244>;
> +
> +        ethernet-ports {
> +            #address-cells = <1>;
> +            #size-cells = <0>;
> +
> +            ethernet-port@0 {
> +                reg = <0>;
> +                phy-mode = "gmii";
> +                phy-handle = <&cuphy0>;
> +            };

Will this example pass make dt_binding_check?

The example references &cuphy0 (and later &cuphy1 through &cuphy3, as well
as &cpu_host_port), but these labels are not defined anywhere in the snippet.
This usually causes the dtc compiler to throw a "Reference to non-existent
node or label" error during the build.

[ ... ]

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260518-dsa_lan9645x_switch_driver_base-v5-0-968fbf34ffa3@microchip.com?part=2