From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (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 80949453498 for ; Wed, 27 May 2026 18:17:56 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1779905878; cv=none; b=IvWqpqH5cKimS2C+er9Pn+x4gBmLXIdiqNzLyeM8/i3OEfwBsz6r0+bZ4hCJN6/5/Xj/Zou+ymtuqZrIN8G87bUL0xfadjFxL0XalGpm9QiUKqWgdIWKaBrxRXiycBA/S0IeaqLsMi+szRfCsPSwoyU5FZ6KJWKwiFMiNDf8Ouk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1779905878; c=relaxed/simple; bh=fDNYIemZZTPVpfMZeZyOHlHoMgOD4SLL5LbNFCun2Hc=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=mTlGaXRGN9My4yTEUHeMy2+tybH3S8HAXDmbOT7MmGrLw+Scnk1oARrSBFJcutwv6CW+0zpmRbjdiHhQmIvxaOiP9QiKzY1Gg/RSNUMcb+FbcklSUzjxwMQsB/iyn6JUMKP+MxCbMPXFGIDrukm5pyQEoCtzmo9WYukxLYPb6MQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=TMwwZPjF; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="TMwwZPjF" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3C59A1F00A3D; Wed, 27 May 2026 18:17:56 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1779905876; bh=UVGrwWWFJSsEojo4q8v6xqxssfvfBavXJ5XhgvnFN70=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=TMwwZPjFSQXmVs9THlk4zmfgTTJ3qbh6PciZIMBhOv9X9RY3okH9PWkUkjO8zA1UH XHK1yo5SEFX+cIWpcbQOwPZ4kWWKWS2dLIQM7I6mKq+A03pepzYOgmfAcdpPZ2p9i8 rDEyQZSXL0HiwPs8/oHYA3QGvcFJOrXJQmwLeg6fAKrHzsPJQiU6hT42zP4lX4KPd5 Ly/v5t7z0vh+F5t0Tat7kyl8jEGj6NGghmBdvXozQmsKItwwZUsr81sd2brajTzZhN nv5FwM8qCfWxQ6TnQ6ZvsbQqlvmEDeAd4AjlmNzW2DtqT65cVQKRq+cvwlhq1ZdmIZ LHcuYmHC9wmdg== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/13] spi: dt-bindings: allow spi-max-frequency to specify a frequency pair Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Santhosh Kumar K" Cc: conor+dt@kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, robh@kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20260527175527.2247679-2-s-k6@ti.com> References: <20260527175527.2247679-2-s-k6@ti.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 27 May 2026 18:17:55 +0000 Message-Id: <20260527181756.3C59A1F00A3D@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: - [High] Schema Validation Regression: Changing `spi-max-frequency` global = type to `uint32-array` silently disables bounds checking on existing periph= eral bindings. -- commit 165130603fd7c72c188dc391a534397b6c57dbd4 Author: Santhosh Kumar K spi: dt-bindings: allow spi-max-frequency to specify a frequency pair This commit extends the spi-max-frequency property to accept either a single maximum frequency or a two-element array. The array format allows specifying a conservative base frequency alongside a higher speed that is supported after controller-side configurations. > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/spi-peripheral-props.y= aml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/spi-peripheral-props.yaml > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/spi-peripheral-props.yaml > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/spi-peripheral-props.yaml [ ... ] > spi-max-frequency: > - $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32 > + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32-array [Severity: High] Does changing the global definition to uint32-array cause issues for existi= ng peripheral schemas that constrain this property using the maximum keyword? According to the JSON schema specifications, the maximum keyword applies on= ly to numeric instances. When the instance is changed to an array, the maximum constraint is silently ignored.=20 If existing device bindings constrain this directly using maximum (for example, maximum: 10000000 without wrapping it in an items object), will they silently fail to validate bounds and allow out-of-spec device tree values to pass validation? > + minItems: 1 > + maxItems: 2 > description: > - Maximum SPI clocking speed of the device in Hz. > + SPI clocking speed of the device in Hz. Either a single maximum --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260527175527.2247= 679-1-s-k6@ti.com?part=3D1