Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] dt-bindings: firmware: add mbedtee,tee binding

[sashiko-bot@kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Low] The `memory-region-names` property incorrectly defines `items` as an object instead of an array of schemas.
- [Low] The provided DT binding examples contain malformed root-level nodes that will cause `dt_binding_check` to fail.
--

commit 5f6618bd551455752fa4251daab79dbc393c89d6
Author: Xing Loong <xing.xl.loong@gmail.com>

dt-bindings: firmware: add mbedtee,tee binding

This commit introduces a new device tree binding for MbedTEE, a Trusted
Execution Environment for embedded systems. It supports both ARM/AArch64
using SMC and RISC-V using IMSIC configurations, communicating via shared
memory ring buffers.

> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/mbedtee,tee.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/mbedtee,tee.yaml
> new file mode 100644
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/mbedtee,tee.yaml

[ ... ]

> +  memory-region-names:
> +    minItems: 2
> +    maxItems: 3
> +    items:
> +      enum:
> +        - t2r-ring
> +        - t2r-shm
> +        - r2t-ring

[Severity: Low]
Does this items definition violate the dt-schema constraints for properties
ending in -names?

dt-schema typically requires an array of schemas for items to enforce strict
sequence order, rather than an enum object. This could cause make
dt_binding_check to fail against the core meta-schema.

[ ... ]

> +examples:
> +  - |
> +    /* ARM TrustZone (SMC) */
> +    #include <dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/arm-gic.h>
> +
> +    firmware {
> +      mbedtee {
> +        compatible = "mbedtee,tee";
> +        interrupts = <GIC_SPI 72 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>;
> +        memory-region = <&mbedtee_t2r_ring>, <&mbedtee_t2r_shm>;
> +        memory-region-names = "t2r-ring", "t2r-shm";
> +      };
> +    };
> +
> +    /* memory-region phandle targets */
> +    mbedtee_t2r_ring: t2r-ring {};
> +    mbedtee_t2r_shm: t2r-shm {};

[Severity: Low]
Will placing these memory region nodes at the root level instead of inside a
reserved-memory node cause dt_binding_check to reject the example?

The root node schema typically rejects arbitrary children lacking compatible
strings.

[ ... ]

> +    /* msi-parent phandle target */
> +    imsic: imsic {
> +      msi-controller;
> +      #msi-cells = <0>;
> +    };

[Severity: Low]
Can this dummy node cause schema validation failures?

It lacks a compatible string and is placed directly at the root level, which
dt-schema usually flags as malformed.

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260702151115.544016-1-xing.xl.loong@gmail.com?part=2