Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: arm: vt8500: via,vt8500-pmc: Convert to DT Schema

[sashiko-bot@kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Medium] Redefining the standard 'clocks' property as an object violates the core DT meta-schema and bypasses child node validation.
--

commit 1dba768055c24a5e16b0109bd342a32c68535b08
Author: Udaya Kiran Challa <challauday369@gmail.com>

dt-bindings: arm: vt8500: via,vt8500-pmc: Convert to DT Schema

This commit converts the VIA/Wondermedia VT8500 Power Management controller
binding from the legacy text format to the new DT schema format.

> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/vt8500/via,vt8500-pmc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/vt8500/via,vt8500-pmc.yaml
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000000..ac603fd4efec9
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/vt8500/via,vt8500-pmc.yaml

[ ... ]

> +properties:
> +  compatible:
> +    const: via,vt8500-pmc
> +
> +  reg:
> +    maxItems: 1
> +
> +  clocks:
> +    type: object
> +    additionalProperties: true

[Severity: Medium]
Does redefining the standard clocks property as an object conflict with the
core DT meta-schema?

The clocks property is globally defined by the core dtschema as an array of
phandles. Defining it here as an object creates a type conflict, which will
cause validation to fail since the schema will require it to be both an
array and an object. Furthermore, using additionalProperties: true disables
schema validation for nested properties and child nodes.

If the intention is to document a legacy child node named clocks, should it
be defined using patternProperties (like "^clocks$") to avoid conflicting
with the standard property definition?

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260524110047.37590-1-challauday369@gmail.com?part=1