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 BAA9044D01D for ; Wed, 29 Jul 2026 12:12:25 +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=1785327149; cv=none; b=jdWetPwjL2b4onihLQtBUqP0pCjMg6qVvoeu2tgn6atnSRzeC4/IA8x2bPxc6RPGqopXCp3v088NiuJBs1i6tH1ZMYFivetgcde9dZKgdiBFjF9mD0NaBHj8cnb4x0tH4UCYXXbLChHsSUUdzMJDSKSIPP2Fm625xb3LhEMizdY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1785327149; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ZA5qgrzRMoB10nXIJEF0yGuIAjRJ1NIJ1Q7t7rPxt2k=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=ZAZLL9UHEenMVHRpH3voS6H1TluUlW78d1VWjIemYfQBc8hMc0790BYnnvYxadGEV94vnVr5+uDLiPlBaJXbDptHji1joot8JBeN8i2I6g1rv7DzOA9175VIWPobEp/khhLH88SP8HUOArPirNP6qYsvibLFCWYYLMiTF+N1jcY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=KIIGFj9Q; 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="KIIGFj9Q" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A2C9B1F000E9; Wed, 29 Jul 2026 12:12:23 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1785327143; bh=/FOaL5B/a/kWnhUGmNeJsMX//2JYa+8QEh9p0IQNOJ8=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=KIIGFj9QQT5HnjGM21czZk7Ki5372bDUAhCO/4qpsjrU6dlabQRua589g+13YBAaA eXbmxpCZRsvH6G7PyQVp3aE1AEJyLiaVJLBkspSwGhUeQcfpnmk4MBg+WrBybf7IaV j9pLOeDNWvOnjbAxaP8d4ngk9BT8OrKCvKrHINKyuAgVoX1z3fPpJSUYZwzZ1G4xPR 2xAaGbf/mCq90fne/UM+BspRtASIwDrmsFZSNyAaapj/Ub/D3k5qmciRaa9j9IZWDu 6GcFwPA/Ut9tW62ywmSe7SnkPTfILj/9XbSNEdPMn6evLp/9RGx3L710Lj1eWaXB75 rYfMzRVwkKatw== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 8/9] arm64: dts: renesas: r9a08g046: Add USB2.0 device nodes Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: Biju Cc: conor+dt@kernel.org, wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, robh@kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20260729115022.222340-9-biju.das.jz@bp.renesas.com> References: <20260729115022.222340-1-biju.das.jz@bp.renesas.com> <20260729115022.222340-9-biju.das.jz@bp.renesas.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2026 12:12:23 +0000 Message-Id: <20260729121223.A2C9B1F000E9@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 1 potential issue(= s) to consider: - [Low] Device tree nodes are not sorted by unit address in ascending order. -- --- Patch [8]: [PATCH v5 8/9] arm64: dts: renesas: r9a08g046: Add USB2.0 de= vice nodes --- commit 577e5e6e2781fd99b54a7c1f671fdf2c32513f48 Author: Biju Das arm64: dts: renesas: r9a08g046: Add USB2.0 device nodes This commit adds USB2.0 device nodes to the RZ/G3L (r9a08g046) SoC DTSI. The additions cover the USB PHY controller, OHCI/EHCI host controllers, and USB2 PHYs for both ports. > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r9a08g046.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot= /dts/renesas/r9a08g046.dtsi > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r9a08g046.dtsi > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r9a08g046.dtsi [ ... ] > + ohci1: usb@11e90000 { > + compatible =3D "generic-ohci"; [ ... ] > + ehci0: usb@11e10100 { > + compatible =3D "generic-ehci"; [ ... ] > + usb2_phy1: usb-phy@11e90200 { > + compatible =3D "renesas,usb2-phy-r9a08g046"; [ ... ] > + }; > + > pcie: pcie@11e40000 { > reg =3D <0 0x11e40000 0 0x10000>; [Severity: Low] This isn't a bug, but are these device tree nodes ordered correctly? Standa= rd device tree guidelines recommend sorting child nodes by unit address in ascending order. In this block, ohci1 at 11e90000 is placed before ehci0 at 11e10100, and usb2_phy1 at 11e90200 is placed before the existing pcie node at 11e40000. Could these nodes be reordered to strictly follow the ascending unit address sequence (11e00000, 11e10000, 11e10100, 11e10200, 11e40000, 11e90000, 11e90100, 11e90200)? --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260729115022.2223= 40-1-biju.das.jz@bp.renesas.com?part=3D8