Re: [PATCH v3 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 YAML examples will fail `make dt_binding_check` with `dtc` compilation errors due to unresolved phandle references.
- [Low] Top-level `items` for `memory-region-names` is defined as an object `enum` rather than a list, leading to unnecessary schema complexity and bypassing strict sequence expectations.
--

--- Patch [2]: [PATCH v3 2/3] dt-bindings: firmware: add mbedtee,tee binding ---
commit 2b2356c421476302d4bae45809eeb06223db44ab
Author: Xing Loong <xing.xl.loong@gmail.com>

dt-bindings: firmware: add mbedtee,tee binding
    
This commit adds a new device tree binding for MbedTEE, a Trusted
Execution Environment. It supports communication via shared memory ring
buffers on ARM and RISC-V platforms.

> 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 top-level enum definition bypass the strict sequence expectations
for *-names properties?

Typically, items should be an ordered list of elements. Defining it as an enum
here allows the names to appear in any order, which is later overridden in the
allOf branches. Could this be simplified by defining the exact list of const
elements at the top level?

[ ... ]

> +examples:
> +  - |
> +    #include <dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/arm-gic.h>
> +
> +    firmware {
> +        mbedtee {
> +            compatible = "mbedtee,tee";
> +            interrupts = <GIC_SPI 72 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>;
> +            memory-region = <&t2r_ring>, <&t2r_shm>;
> +            memory-region-names = "t2r-ring", "t2r-shm";
> +        };
> +    };
> +
> +  - |
> +    firmware {
> +        mbedtee {
> +            compatible = "mbedtee,tee";
> +            msi-parent = <&imsic>;
> +            memory-region = <&t2r_ring>, <&t2r_shm>, <&r2t_ring>;
> +            memory-region-names = "t2r-ring", "t2r-shm", "r2t-ring";
> +        };
> +    };

[Severity: Low]
Will these examples fail make dt_binding_check with dtc compilation errors?

The phandles like <&t2r_ring>, <&t2r_shm>, <&r2t_ring>, and <&imsic> are used
here but are not defined as stub nodes anywhere in the example blocks. The
device tree compiler generally cannot resolve these phandles without the stub
definitions.

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260720073558.799755-1-xing.xl.loong@gmail.com?part=2