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 6C3F01E32A2; Thu, 25 Jun 2026 08:27:59 +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=1782376080; cv=none; b=em218E3ztUm5OC8mdrIksCNVIaDMrAvTJ1aOB1/zM3bBMjm31In4DVURgeL9ZQnGpFdGn/mrW9VK96fd4MFriKlaFf82iSujPblirPrFL77YIJI1f95iBmow5dOxhGuRIKcL496Yynuupfdp9iWkNXG736vOabq90i/v7H4E1UM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1782376080; c=relaxed/simple; bh=+coBmhYgyURRGwX3T53+GmiUvimHziGcSd7913hosSs=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=JgEX+fcRQecp3Fq4dci+Hq+PGzOVbmD9xihLDDIqbbwZefHxOCJUG6Q9eKvBecceYeFDWp+q7RUDTQPT2lNztyeCNKbUUTHh4Op+oCwggRddCeIVYkOIqNmyziWiZGGMzLQS5s7Y/kWnJQoZSIRhtv4595EEviSuhQvsOfa4sNM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=RiOF2Yqa; 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="RiOF2Yqa" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8E6CB1F000E9; Thu, 25 Jun 2026 08:27:58 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1782376079; bh=D8agqbFKmtG4ZzlbSngzHpX9UjemAREGvQYvUlIKYmg=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=RiOF2YqagWxXV8sPBAW4o1LQ3VA3/8QsVQkIRdKTL7n6MbwxCREl8B7vxq5jhOOnR YpHx4kvhZO4nGrDCAFEjGMxSzejGlWVwa/XuM256QAf1eHeSn28nKhFhQqXjP15x+L rb0+GaB285ijiSVgqFxaf5CyTLRb5BV7vgGalj1fktP5nA3i1RsvIpCojh4DaEFucN tKq2RQnPCo1GfoODZoRSRJ4uQnwxJCSaj9oF9bnQ7gBKerMnZyNv3YiMzNI0eEYIMs ArWux3N4Kq/6f3HfjyEB+hckwcdogdNFeS1Xlws53eHkdKLXhdsnAfx1u/WV0xUJzp 6WWckhQa21sMg== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/6 RESEND] dt-bindings: mfd: motorola-cpcap: document Mapphone and Mot CPCAP Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Svyatoslav Ryhel" Cc: robh@kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, lee@kernel.org, conor+dt@kernel.org, dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com, linux-input@vger.kernel.org, linux-leds@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20260625081812.33474-5-clamor95@gmail.com> References: <20260625081812.33474-1-clamor95@gmail.com> <20260625081812.33474-5-clamor95@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2026 08:27:58 +0000 Message-Id: <20260625082758.8E6CB1F000E9@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] The newly added device tree compatible strings `motorola,mapphone-= cpcap` and `motorola,mot-cpcap` are defined as a standalone enum without a = fallback, forcing device trees to either break schema validation or break O= MAP platform initialization. -- commit 6926040210bec2501eaa0528dd29bde0ac318c6c Author: Svyatoslav Ryhel dt-bindings: mfd: motorola-cpcap: document Mapphone and Mot CPCAP Add compatibles for Mapphone and Mot CPCAP subdevice compositions. Both variations cannot use st,6556002 fallback since they may be based on different controllers. > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/motorola,cpcap.yaml b/= Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/motorola,cpcap.yaml > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/motorola,cpcap.yaml > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/motorola,cpcap.yaml [ ... ] > @@ -14,9 +14,14 @@ allOf: > =20 > properties: > compatible: > - items: > - - const: motorola,cpcap > - - const: st,6556002 > + oneOf: > + - enum: > + - motorola,mapphone-cpcap > + - motorola,mot-cpcap [Severity: High] Will this schema change break OMAP platform initialization for devices=20 using these new variants? The schema defines the new compatibles as a standalone enum. However, the OMAP platform initialization code explicitly relies on finding a node with = the generic motorola,cpcap compatible to configure the PMIC: arch/arm/mach-omap2/pmic-cpcap.c:omap4_cpcap_init() { ... if (!of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, "motorola,cpcap")) return -ENODEV; ... } If a device tree conforms to this new schema (using only the specific varia= nt compatible), the platform code will fail to find the node, breaking PMIC se= tup and CPU voltage scaling.=20 Conversely, if a device tree defines an items array using motorola,cpcap as= a fallback to successfully initialize the platform code, it will fail schema validation because this oneOf block expects either a standalone enum or the specific ["motorola,cpcap", "st,6556002"] items list. Should the new variants include motorola,cpcap as a fallback in an items array, or does the OMAP platform code need an update to recognize these new standalone compatibles? > + > + - items: > + - const: motorola,cpcap > + - const: st,6556002 > =20 > reg: > maxItems: 1 --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260625081812.3347= 4-1-clamor95@gmail.com?part=3D4