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 1C05E3F9A15 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2026 09:53:08 +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=1785405190; cv=none; b=DOPgB2k5yJi0NsP0ZgTlVAadMDSrk12HjLkfUujSfbz+dTePyREdHTYeqLZdV/ZtCOnH2t5He8Jki7deYYxsek0bwXVdo5PjjsdmWhoNL2/PnTJyJO/n1RoAl2tpzuQgkjgWJ3hWOXpFVBisbPymu23kCHDVMJt4aVPKGNRKJwA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1785405190; c=relaxed/simple; bh=XbGTrmA40a6T5kyyU/HkgOp2oMCxuKbGseIOuZV9q1M=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=GPvPpiLt+vC2sdbGXbtVP7RlcDdpDD5qkm1NzBNnRLQiV1QZ5GlHThhz95v+AJ4ptWF5XCk/5qFwA+5PFE3SmMwBtaWeZi9PQ4ibztdXhIw4gtQ4F2Hvm4hR6ofslxacpN103sJN+oZkehXaKsrJtwrQwYHafOBpLUjycZDb5rI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=IIzAdCYu; 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="IIzAdCYu" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0D27F1F000E9; Thu, 30 Jul 2026 09:53:07 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1785405188; bh=xBQ33JxPx5+g5mmX36W920GU1XVfvl4gkayUcbyQ7uY=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=IIzAdCYupap8+onZ6iW1c1PIMwA8khr2YVNb+3jDnDX18APWBcxW/5QcQiv8IEFuP mDy1DPU42PTHU0pJECw+GtFYR7G9WkDm5D0K6PMpIaqsAw6LIJinhmjCoObzaGiTy5 rof1l8y9DF5yBhc9Rls6Tm6BuuEEhvAjN3qD29RqHHt13uVOGnJs6/fSLyBIaJZvWL KgL1ddOHDmlLJgR3/Lirt/tKL5yfVBNorUr+Ca2dIkCmHQsS5ms4lEJV0XqP2VLhvA aXiA016IIGmu33XrpOG4B0z8ddNBdVJ+rr0pZdtK/S4Eh/8VgBza6g3/NiXpqgAc57 ITE+mN+TxgWMg== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: soc: qcom: add xiaomi,taoyao-pmic-glink compatible Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Stanislav Zaikin" Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org, conor+dt@kernel.org, robh@kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20260730093502.689505-2-zstaseg@gmail.com> References: <20260730093502.689505-1-zstaseg@gmail.com> <20260730093502.689505-2-zstaseg@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2026 09:53:07 +0000 Message-Id: <20260730095308.0D27F1F000E9@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: - [Medium] The schema change enforces an incorrect, truncated fallback chai= n that skips the intermediate SoC compatible string. -- --- Patch [1]: [RFC PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: soc: qcom: add xiaomi,taoyao-pm= ic-glink compatible --- commit 52fb33657926ca90fb558df9e2cd09cb2c215e6e Author: Stanislav Zaikin dt-bindings: soc: qcom: add xiaomi,taoyao-pmic-glink compatible This commit adds the xiaomi,taoyao-pmic-glink compatible string for the Xiaomi 12 Lite 5G. This allows its battery manager to be matched to a device-specific variant in qcom_battmgr. > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,pmic-glink.y= aml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,pmic-glink.yaml > index 16ad4f5698fc3..8ca057c4e3e61 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,pmic-glink.yaml > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,pmic-glink.yaml > @@ -41,6 +41,7 @@ properties: > - items: > - enum: > - qcom,sm7325-pmic-glink > + - xiaomi,taoyao-pmic-glink > - const: qcom,qcm6490-pmic-glink > - const: qcom,pmic-glink [Severity: Medium] Does this schema change enforce an incorrect, truncated fallback chain that skips the intermediate SoC compatible string? By grouping the board-specific string (xiaomi,taoyao-pmic-glink) in an enum alongside the SoC string (qcom,sm7325-pmic-glink), the schema restricts the compatible list to exactly 3 items. This forces device tree authors to omit the SoC-level fallback (qcom,sm7325-pmic-glink) in order to pass dtbs_check. Should this instead be defined with a 4-item list so the board compatible can properly fall back to the sm7325 SoC compatible before falling back to the generic qcm6490 and pmic-glink ones? > - items: --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260730093502.6895= 05-1-zstaseg@gmail.com?part=3D1