Re: [PATCH v7 1/8] dt-bindings: soc: qcom: eud: Add per-path child nodes for UTMI routing

[sashiko-bot@kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Low] Missing `#address-cells` and `#size-cells` in the `required` list of conditional blocks for configurations that use child nodes with unit addresses (`eud-path@X`).
--

commit 4ec64fc010ea8502aae975163886af215d1fa042
Author: Elson Serrao <elson.serrao@oss.qualcomm.com>

dt-bindings: soc: qcom: eud: Add per-path child nodes for UTMI routing

This commit modifies the EUD binding to model UTMI paths as separate child
nodes (eud-path@X) with their own OF graph, replacing the flattened ports
representation. It introduces the qcom,sm8350-eud compatible for dual-path
topologies and conditionally maintains legacy support for sc7280.

> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,eud.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,eud.yaml
> index 84218636c0d8d..c377a77d623cf 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,eud.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,eud.yaml
[ ... ]
> @@ -45,10 +46,88 @@ properties:
> +allOf:
> +  - if:
> +      properties:
> +        compatible:
> +          contains:
> +            const: qcom,sc7280-eud
> +    then:
> +      oneOf:
> +        - required:
> +            - ports
> +          properties:
> +            eud-path@0: false
> +            eud-path@1: false
> +        - required:
> +            - eud-path@0

[Severity: Low]
Does this configuration need to require #address-cells and #size-cells
for the parent node?

Since the eud-path@0 child node has a unit address, failing to mandate
the cell size properties in this branch allows configurations to omit them,
passing schema validation silently even though the structure is invalid.

> +          properties:
> +            ports: false
> +            eud-path@1: false
> +  - if:
> +      properties:
> +        compatible:
> +          contains:
> +            const: qcom,sm8350-eud
> +    then:
> +      required:
> +        - eud-path@0
> +        - eud-path@1

[Severity: Low]
Should this branch also explicitly require #address-cells and #size-cells?

Similar to the sc7280 case above, the sm8350 variant strictly requires child
nodes with unit addresses. Without mandating the cell size properties in the
required list, a device tree could miss them and still pass YAML validation.

> +      properties:
> +        ports: false

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260831030147.1500616-1-elson.serrao@oss.qualcomm.com?part=1