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 07AC52E7BB6 for ; Sun, 2 Aug 2026 07:40:43 +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=1785656445; cv=none; b=aa2xMOjBT6MojaHtUk7kikt9rq8nyHz3rHReXq7BowHXHkK10d2YPO70FiGYBribZUswruCuSal5bfxLi9/OQcO0+FNjki+RTtTOUT0PUADt0+NZGo3y6s0SjqtFX1/NaYQ6yyeMV64fxvENc2xp4ItBu78lCePCwvJV3vLnwJQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1785656445; c=relaxed/simple; bh=4eeWiW/lzbRkGfpBeu9rrLeCqF2GzxQ5AZvrz1aDoSI=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=ltEYv+tcwM+Gx5Pa8VACxNGvjO0fgJXpDbVfX1WJNTdrJ2AfmYMQaK8u/h+zQiOrL7/XGg0k/3Ckl3lTi2lapENZA20sEsLXJ7Z50S7wp3t6tsGTBPXJfuMy/hzn6+nDxLJGxLRCNUDASkO7dAOUq2Op3ylN/NUb8MquTVICytw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=A9ax6DJZ; 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="A9ax6DJZ" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 97C021F00AC4; Sun, 2 Aug 2026 07:40:43 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1785656443; bh=JnLLJKfrQZJ0bXH0iNuYeqaQlWLOTGdVO/0B3xPxmd4=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=A9ax6DJZR388VEfhRsJ9/5SgQieNABMCsjdVVYqY/0fcy91TujVnkGib+HKAVseSV 16HebOFM7p6EfkkwS6tDBtpx1bPtIp1LYc7zy224gjZzlwa8cQdBEok6lyHB41tC7c SRmUB9EcPgUZ2QSkwXrRhZ7OuFpYmQPW0AFDSLIGCglcKTelug0n8smRDsDh5M5L2g uxm1la3K37mUIHBgjsQnHVKcapXfLievyv/TPuZHR3eQALfsCxR9ytLO4o4PJMKZVX Gy7XXkd80xTg8rP4PbfdZ3RglvrzXFmL5+HWLJ5p0yLYbzluIODklQ74PYEo6mS/RA NCU8grpyjESLw== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] dt-bindings: pinctrl: qcom,sm8450-tlmm: Add compatible for SM8475 Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Esteban Urrutia" Cc: robh@kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, conor+dt@kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20260802-sm8475-tlmm-v2-3-a93e1d1cb53b@proton.me> References: <20260802-sm8475-tlmm-v2-0-a93e1d1cb53b@proton.me> <20260802-sm8475-tlmm-v2-3-a93e1d1cb53b@proton.me> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2026 07:40:43 +0000 Message-Id: <20260802074043.97C021F00AC4@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 binding unconditionally applies SM8450-specific pin and func= tion constraints to the SM8475 compatible string. -- --- Patch [3]: [PATCH v2 3/4] dt-bindings: pinctrl: qcom,sm8450-tlmm: Add c= ompatible for SM8475 --- commit 2182c26c092a1652eaae869b76b2b59cec9ca7fc Author: Esteban Urrutia dt-bindings: pinctrl: qcom,sm8450-tlmm: Add compatible for SM8475 SM8450 and SM8475 have different pinctrl drivers, which are incompatible with each other. Add compatible string for the SM8475 pinctrl driver. > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/qcom,sm8450-tlmm.y= aml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/qcom,sm8450-tlmm.yaml > index 16fd2c5e23393..c790ab851bc73 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/qcom,sm8450-tlmm.yaml > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/qcom,sm8450-tlmm.yaml > @@ -17,7 +17,9 @@ allOf: > =20 > properties: > compatible: > - const: qcom,sm8450-tlmm > + enum: > + - qcom,sm8450-tlmm > + - qcom,sm8475-tlmm [Severity: Medium] Since the commit message notes these drivers are incompatible with each oth= er, will SM8475 have different pin counts and multiplexing functions? By adding the SM8475 compatible string here without any conditional blocks, the schema unconditionally applies the SM8450-specific constraints defined in qcom-sm8450-tlmm-state: qcom-sm8450-tlmm-state: type: object ... properties: pins: ... function: description: Specify the alternative function to be configured... enum: [ aon_cam, atest_char, atest_usb, ... ] Will this cause dtbs_check to incorrectly reject valid SM8475 device trees that use different pins or functions, and incorrectly allow SM8450 functions on SM8475 nodes? Should these constraints be split using if-then blocks, or is it better to split this binding into a separate schema document for the SM8475 variant? > =20 > reg: > maxItems: 1 --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260802-sm8475-tlm= m-v2-0-a93e1d1cb53b@proton.me?part=3D3