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 1485E39F16B for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2026 10:48:57 +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=1785408538; cv=none; b=fPAU0TVehOjrgbLOf+f2DO7az/ecCGYtzdBoLN2MHX7iRBluq6t1hudLPPUUyjd7W1yPdFaCarllv/c+LCk0Db81tswIBaPBJGlsZD6feZMrkmA/uDvNjvSnu93+m420OOk2HfkgZs1cpr4Jdm+Zd3urmUR7YTJMXCfW3G0Hajo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1785408538; c=relaxed/simple; bh=+VxtLkCMpVWpxg2e0TTsB7sevAJ7AN28yqm0Bjv6+T8=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=tX/zFzNB/wSAgCdBiIWfUcndWyYXtWlm8VshdAXnTH4fZKbHNqg8M3EZzRCxpu2O74+vQcMgij9DkfKTjBdZjhwHL0JOwmbM47Ma9OPTCEGt4gKYoQTQVCpG5Ddu8rRnNdVhz5bY7Dxrub4VrXuyTaW2s0SEsmMJhEMzyldlJyw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=kSnqwQOi; 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="kSnqwQOi" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A190E1F000E9; Thu, 30 Jul 2026 10:48:56 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1785408537; bh=BNSpfg1dD65k9M27JZgfUR+wpB8oHyjCK72xBZwAGyQ=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=kSnqwQOirOzfR/GtFM+fY1D5Z6A44QEzY0S017dyeLnejR6mgv1ztsN6J7x/IBcjc XOdM3z3bYX+QdD5x1oOGSp/kyNz1jTrug0kqQS4UUGncpEzQUfFpxCcKjpvv6guPYX 64PEFjfarV81aKseX28LkNYE+NQSk1fQhq35VqBFUO18EV3HS0EW9GkPKFRUPvvqnJ nCmQ1Z8YDcOtVrML//mi1wwLAO0TcM8MydRI1ZKtjN+wYCqE4gu2TXezXaMiTjeo86 4bXkQ4uoL9aFU83DBF+gnaTBsG+SY4L48krYNVG7VXto2BfHsFn6OABsFyX92vzRBK VabTViAf+GgBQ== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] dt-bindings: soc: renesas: Add various SolidRun RZ/G2 based boards Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Josua Mayer" Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org, wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com, conor+dt@kernel.org, robh@kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20260730-rzg2-sr-boards-v4-1-08bc459578dc@solid-run.com> References: <20260730-rzg2-sr-boards-v4-0-08bc459578dc@solid-run.com> <20260730-rzg2-sr-boards-v4-1-08bc459578dc@solid-run.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2026 10:48:56 +0000 Message-Id: <20260730104856.A190E1F000E9@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 bindings for SolidRun SoMs fail schema validation when used = standalone, as they omit the 3-item compatible string configurations. -- --- Patch [1]: [PATCH v4 1/5] dt-bindings: soc: renesas: Add various SolidR= un RZ/G2 based boards --- commit 5a8377d33a57f9f7e33e7aca8fc9422f672bf72b Author: Josua Mayer dt-bindings: soc: renesas: Add various SolidRun RZ/G2 based boards Add bindings for various SolidRun boards and System on Module built around Renesas RZ/G2 family of SoCs. > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/renesas/renesas.yaml b= /Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/renesas/renesas.yaml > index eeef34e3d7d07..1673005a3d930 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/renesas/renesas.yaml > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/renesas/renesas.yaml > @@ -508,6 +508,14 @@ properties: [ ... ] > + - description: SolidRun RZ/G2UL based boards > + items: > + - enum: > + - solidrun,rzg2ul-hummingboard-ripple # SolidRun RZ/G2UL H= ummingBoard Ripple > + - const: solidrun,rzg2ul-sr-som > + - const: renesas,r9a07g043u12 # RZ/G2UL Type-2 > + - const: renesas,r9a07g043 > + [Severity: Medium] Will this schema definition break validation for standalone SolidRun SoMs? The current schema items block mandates exactly 4 compatible strings, with = the first string being one of the carrier board enum values. If a standalone SoM device tree is defined with 3 compatible strings (e.g., "solidrun,rzg2ul-sr-som", "renesas,r9a07g043u12", "renesas,r9a07g043"), it appears it will fail validation because there is no matching 3-item array block for the standalone SoM. [ ... ] > + - description: SolidRun RZ/G2L based boards > + items: > + - enum: > + - solidrun,rzg2l-hummingboard-iiot # SolidRun RZ/G2L Hum= mingBoard IIoT > + - solidrun,rzg2l-hummingboard-pro # SolidRun RZ/G2L Hum= mingBoard Pro > + - solidrun,rzg2l-hummingboard-ripple # SolidRun RZ/G2L Hum= mingBoard Ripple > + - const: solidrun,rzg2l-sr-som > + - const: renesas,r9a07g044l2 # Dual Cortex-A55 RZ/G2L > + - const: renesas,r9a07g044 > + [Severity: Medium] Does the standalone RZ/G2L SoM also require its own 3-item validation block for the same reason? Without it, standalone SoM configurations will likely fail dt_binding_check and dtbs_check validation. --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260730-rzg2-sr-bo= ards-v4-0-08bc459578dc@solid-run.com?part=3D1