Re: [PATCH 1/7] dt-bindings: interrupt-controller: mpm: Document power-domains property

[sashiko-bot@kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Medium] The commit incorrectly removes the `#power-domain-cells` provider property and replaces it with a consumer property (`power-domains`), breaking schema validation for existing device trees and misrepresenting the hardware architecture.
- [Low] The modified example code introduces an unresolved phandle (`&cluster_pd`), which causes `make dt_binding_check` to fail.
--

--- Patch [1]: [PATCH 1/7] dt-bindings: interrupt-controller: mpm: Document power-domains property ---
commit eb530c220bf421a5d64eb53cfa4eaaad646e6a1d
Author: Sneh Mankad <sneh.mankad@oss.qualcomm.com>

dt-bindings: interrupt-controller: mpm: Document power-domains property

This commit removes the #power-domain-cells property and replaces it with a
power-domains property for the MPM device binding schema.

> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/qcom,mpm.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/qcom,mpm.yaml
> index ebb40c48950ab..3f9645fbc3c20 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/qcom,mpm.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/qcom,mpm.yaml
[ ... ]
> @@ -68,8 +68,8 @@ properties:
>          - description: MPM pin number
>          - description: GIC SPI number for the MPM pin
>  
> -  '#power-domain-cells':
> -    const: 0
> +  power-domains:
> +    maxItems: 1

[Severity: Medium]
Does this change accurately reflect the hardware architecture?

Looking at the driver implementation in drivers/irqchip/irq-qcom-mpm.c,
qcom_mpm_probe() registers a PM domain provider:

    ret = of_genpd_add_provider_simple(np, genpd);

This driver natively implements a PM domain provider, which relies on the
#power-domain-cells property being present in the device tree.

Additionally, existing in-tree device trees (such as agatti.dtsi) currently
declare #power-domain-cells = <0>; in their mpm nodes. Removing this
provider property and replacing it with a consumer property will likely cause
dtbs_check to fail for those existing boards.

>  
>  required:
>    - compatible
[ ... ]
> @@ -113,6 +113,6 @@ examples:
>                                 <24 79>,
>                                 <86 183>,
>                                 <91 260>;
> -            #power-domain-cells = <0>;
> +            power-domains = <&cluster_pd>;

[Severity: Low]
Is the cluster_pd phandle defined in this example block?

Adding an unresolved phandle reference to the examples section typically
causes the dtc compiler to fail with a 'Reference to non-existent node
or label' error when running make dt_binding_check.

>          };
>      };

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260713-b4-shikra_lpm_addition-v1-0-3d858df2cbbf@oss.qualcomm.com?part=1