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 D00CC2E612E for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2026 03:47:08 +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=1782445629; cv=none; b=Edw7HW/1M0hEkkYpU7j4x/JzNt1Byb8jxMnDLsssRKl5anpEl3HL9Q/JWsZR4WaxxYr4sgm/41uGx5G2H1yDW0mLN6z2gb9J6sQUwZ1fpMWSDN1Gd40WoqWf25ICjVNuZ0uOj8ShrpoxALlAE3caYsUxuC9JSwNQgIuJGadWICc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1782445629; c=relaxed/simple; bh=kwBicSXiFB+tJMr8XuamvcExKXKjQQfj1NMZK7soR9s=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=qpScDSyAcO+xGn1Eow5ZdFgQAFbOCMcL4D0S+9MjfYcbunldyML/PIq/dCL2I1zhozAB7dn18tkwNIUTx4yvYE/h7I56tOYeGTB0g+Xj3zi/oHsQTzhTHzoVV2g9Www/DvSMR/8h67RZj2GKUS3ZbgzLIO4uAeBMjnykw6pFVOM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=GROUymBC; 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="GROUymBC" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3A62F1F000E9; Fri, 26 Jun 2026 03:47:08 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1782445628; bh=4V4mo401fnPFC5m3gQs8//GjPUPNqylNuQMN32ZsGqE=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=GROUymBCNnrdLCGK/Z5KjKhhqUcI34rnAP0VPxZvtUZLr2E8rVKicPFBxQECZViWD JPmdBcQrmBmjfVL6NF/SOT6Rw575pe+Q7Y/E3QXogZovdRdbCZRt7wuAceZzgP1i8a nCFfQXzVjgyeG23WVXnyRkaRtxdLhtsSUcw1PDj64Orzep80JbzRDpclTug2zHGfLk R9S581CJJ9WyhEm8pPnY4MEqSDPmfIj4SdMWKJuMfQTa1XUn77FwzCdSJNm/Gutsrv zW9s3ChauE2X/2zTX7Tfj/gX6P2oWsYdJglJPcrphLKZ6eDz6MKhxTMQcSPkllLBC2 S1h/1KT5+GtMQ== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm64: tegra: Add Lenovo ThinkEdge SE70 carrier board DTS Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Jiqi Li" Cc: conor+dt@kernel.org, robh@kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20260626033418.520762-3-lijq9@lenovo.com> References: <20260626033418.520762-1-lijq9@lenovo.com> <20260626033418.520762-3-lijq9@lenovo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2026 03:47:07 +0000 Message-Id: <20260626034708.3A62F1F000E9@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 5 potential issue(= s) to consider: - [High] Pin configurations are instantiated as standalone dummy nodes inst= ead of subnodes of the pinctrl controllers. - [High] SD card controller override fails due to a node name mismatch (`sd= hci` vs `mmc`). - [High] The pwm-fan status override fails because it is incorrectly nested= under bus@0. - [Medium] Device tree contains dead overrides for non-existent downstream = nodes. - [Medium] The fixed-regulators node incorrectly uses simple-bus with `#add= ress-cells =3D <1>` for a sizeless child. -- commit 124a29c4818b88a33b77f6bc336c64c7bd9a06ec Author: Jiqi Li arm64: tegra: Add Lenovo ThinkEdge SE70 carrier board DTS ThinkEdge SE70 is a fanless industrial edge gateway built around NVIDIA Tegra194 Xavier NX SOM. This patch adds a standalone device tree file describing core carrier board peripherals. > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/nvidia/tegra194-lenovo-thinkedge-se70.dt= s b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/nvidia/tegra194-lenovo-thinkedge-se70.dts > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000000000..d44eb7c9b4742 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/nvidia/tegra194-lenovo-thinkedge-se70.dts [ ... ] > + /* Fixed 3.3V regulator for external SD card slot */ > + fixed-regulators { > + compatible =3D "simple-bus"; > + #address-cells =3D <1>; > + #size-cells =3D <0>; > + ap2306gn_3v3_sd: ap2306gn-3v3-sd { [Severity: Medium] The fixed-regulators node is marked as compatible =3D "simple-bus" and sets #address-cells =3D <1>, but its child ap2306gn-3v3-sd does not have a unit address or a reg property. Since the simple-bus binding requires children to have a reg or ranges property, will this cause dtbs_check validation to fail? [ ... ] > + bus@0 { > + > + /* Custom pinmux configurations for 40-pin expansion header */ > + pinmux@c302000 { > + status =3D "okay"; > + touch-clk-pcc4 { > + nvidia,pins =3D "touch_clk_pcc4"; > + nvidia,function =3D "rsvd2"; > + nvidia,pull =3D ; > + nvidia,tristate =3D ; > + nvidia,enable-input =3D ; > + }; > + }; > + > + pinmux@2430028 { > + status =3D "okay"; > + soc-gpio41-pq5 { [Severity: High] Is it intended to create standalone nodes at the exact register offsets of the individual pins (pinmux@c302000 and pinmux@2430028), instead of placing them as subnodes under the main pinctrl controllers (which reside at pinmux@c300000 and pinmux@2430000 in tegra194.dtsi)? Because they are standalone nodes and lack a pinctrl-0 reference, the pinct= rl driver won't parse them, which will cause these pinmux configurations to be ignored. [ ... ] > + /* SDMMC3 for external user SD card slot with dedicated 3.3V power */ > + sdhci@3440000 { > + vmmc-supply =3D <&ap2306gn_3v3_sd>; > + cd-gpios =3D <&gpio_aon TEGRA194_AON_GPIO(CC, 4) GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>; > + status =3D "okay"; > + }; [Severity: High] In the upstream tegra194.dtsi, the SDMMC3 controller is defined as mmc@3440000. Does using sdhci@3440000 here create a new, inert dummy node instead of overriding the existing mmc@3440000 node? This would leave the actual controller in its default disabled state. > + > + /* Disable fan and tachometer hardware not populated on SE70 carrier b= oard */ > + pwm-fan { > + status =3D "disabled"; > + }; [Severity: High] In tegra194-p3509-0000.dtsi, the pwm-fan node is located at the root of the device tree (/pwm-fan). Since this override is nested inside /bus@0/, doesn't this create a new dum= my node at /bus@0/pwm-fan while leaving the actual root /pwm-fan node enabled? > + thermal-fan-est { > + status =3D "disabled"; > + }; > + tachometer@39c0000 { > + status =3D "disabled"; > + }; [Severity: Medium] It looks like nodes such as thermal-fan-est, tachometer@39c0000, generic-pwm-tachometer, spi@3210000, and spi@3230000 do not exist in the upstream tegra194 device tree sources. Does overriding them here just create new dummy disabled nodes instead of affecting real hardware? --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260626033418.5207= 62-1-lijq9@lenovo.com?part=3D2