Re: [PATCH v7 1/2] dt-bindings: mfd: x-powers: Add AC200

[sashiko-bot@kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Medium] Potential incomplete Device Tree Binding Schema for AC200 hardware functions
--

--- Patch [1]: [PATCH v7 1/2] dt-bindings: mfd: x-powers: Add AC200 ---
commit edf03c82fb970a30013a24a5a03b1e0de64b8288
Author: James Hilliard <james.hilliard1@gmail.com>

dt-bindings: mfd: x-powers: Add AC200

This commit introduces the device tree binding schema for the X-Powers AC200
mixed-signal IC. The device provides audio, video, RTC, and Fast Ethernet PHY
functions controlled over I2C.

> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/x-powers,ac200.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/x-powers,ac200.yaml
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000000..609831b15c806
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/x-powers,ac200.yaml

[ ... ]

> +required:
> +  - compatible
> +  - reg
> +  - clocks
> +
> +additionalProperties: false

[Severity: Medium]
Since the AC200 provides audio, video, and RTC functions as mentioned in the
commit message, will these require child nodes in the device tree?

With additionalProperties: false, any attempt to add child nodes for these
sub-devices, or a shared interrupts property for the parent, will fail schema
validation. If these functions are meant to be modeled as MFD child nodes,
should they be documented here to avoid validation failures when device trees
start describing the IC's full capabilities?

> +
> +examples:
> +  - |
> +    i2c {
> +        #address-cells = <1>;
> +        #size-cells = <0>;
> +
> +        mixed-signal@10 {
> +            compatible = "x-powers,ac200";
> +            reg = <0x10>;
> +            clocks = <&pwm 5>;
> +        };
> +    };
> +...

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260811-submit-ac200-mfd-v7-0-8b06f552a4d7@gmail.com?part=1