Re: [PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: rtc: Add Raspberry Pi 5 RTC binding

[sashiko-bot@kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 3 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Medium] The binding introduces a custom, un-prefixed `trickle-charge-microvolt` property instead of using the standard `trickle-voltage-millivolt` property, and fails to reference the common RTC schema.
- [Low] The YAML filename does not match the primary compatible string it defines.
- [Low] Spelling errors in the commit message.
--

commit 425dd29b0a89a2c3ccab5825c325cf7042fb52e4
Author: Sander Speetjens <sander.speetjens@gmail.com>

dt-bindings: rtc: Add Raspberry Pi 5 RTC binding

This commit adds device tree bindings for the Raspberry Pi 5 RTC, which is
located in a custom DA9091 PMIC and accessed through the firmware mailbox
interface.

> Add device tree bindings for the Raspberry Pi 5 RTC.
> Located in a custom DA9091 PMIC and accesed trough the firmware mailbox.

[Severity: Low]
This isn't a bug, but there are spelling mistakes in the commit message.
"accesed trough" should be "accessed through".

> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/raspberrypi,rtc-rpi.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/raspberrypi,rtc-rpi.yaml
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000000..93430048355a8
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/raspberrypi,rtc-rpi.yaml
> @@ -0,0 +1,48 @@

[ ... ]

> +properties:
> +  compatible:
> +    const: raspberrypi,rpi-rtc

[Severity: Low]
Does this compatible string intentionally differ from the filename? The YAML
filename (raspberrypi,rtc-rpi.yaml) does not match the defined primary
compatible string (raspberrypi,rpi-rtc), which goes against standard binding
naming conventions.

> +
> +  firmware:
> +    $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle
> +    description:
> +      Phandle to the Raspberry Pi firmware device.
> +
> +  trickle-charge-microvolt:
> +    description:
> +      RTC backup battery trickle-charge voltage. A value of 0 disables
> +      trickle charging.

[Severity: Medium]
Should this property use the standard trickle-voltage-millivolt property
name instead? If a custom property is strictly required here, shouldn't it
have a vendor prefix?

[ ... ]

> +required:
> +  - compatible
> +  - firmware
> +
> +additionalProperties: false

[Severity: Medium]
Should this binding reference the common RTC schema? Setting
additionalProperties: false without including an $ref to rtc.yaml# will
strictly reject generic RTC properties. Any device tree developer attempting
to use standard RTC properties (like wakeup-source) on this node will
encounter schema validation failures.

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260909141300.1368790-1-sander.speetjens@gmail.com?part=1