Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] dt-bindings: spmi: apple,spmi: Add t603x

[sashiko-bot@kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Medium] The binding introduces interrupt controller capabilities but fails to add `interrupt-controller` and `#interrupt-cells` to the `required` list, violating the dt-bindings subsystem guide.
--

--- Patch [1]: [PATCH v2 1/7] dt-bindings: spmi: apple,spmi: Add t603x ---
commit 3993abab519c4cf9121f6e121ee3a9b9ac214c43
Author: Sasha Finkelstein <k@chaosmail.tech>

dt-bindings: spmi: apple,spmi: Add t603x

This commit adds t603x compatibles, interrupt support, and support for
SPMI controllers that are not always-on.

> Keeping the "interrupt-controller" property as optional, as taking the
> j514c as an example, we only need this functionality on 3 out of 10
> SPMI controllers present on this SoC.

[Severity: Medium]
Device tree bindings are meant to describe hardware capabilities rather
than operating system usage.

If the hardware itself has interrupt controller capabilities, they should be
defined as required.

If only specific hardware instances possess this capability, they can be
enforced using an if/then conditional block instead of making the properties
globally optional.

Does keeping these properties optional here conflate operating system
usage with hardware capabilities?

> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spmi/apple,spmi.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spmi/apple,spmi.yaml
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spmi/apple,spmi.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spmi/apple,spmi.yaml

[ ... ]

> @@ -34,6 +36,18 @@ properties:
>    reg:
>      maxItems: 1
>  
> +  interrupts:
> +    maxItems: 1
> +    description: Optional, operates in polled mode if not present
> +
> +  interrupt-controller: true
> +
> +  "#interrupt-cells":
> +    const: 2
> +
> +  power-domains:
> +    maxItems: 1
> +
>  required:
>    - compatible
>    - reg

[Severity: Medium]
The device tree binding guidelines specify that when a hardware variant adds
provider capabilities, the corresponding standard properties (in this case,
interrupt-controller and #interrupt-cells) must appear in the required list
with appropriate constraints.

Leaving them optional allows incomplete device tree nodes missing these
properties to silently pass schema validation, which can lead to runtime
driver failures.

Should interrupt-controller and #interrupt-cells be added to this required
list?

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260728-t603x-spmi-v2-0-f43e5f10e583@chaosmail.tech?part=1