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 B21D431F9A7 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 2026 08:58:40 +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=1789462721; cv=none; b=uRvxKDhR5yfy/jBXC5KeDJ3B9DfUtM20b9bXFm/oN0YvIKi9txSiQOH8OOPe6x9zzSyr8Py0hyQD49Y/PJnY9hec28m9s6pmP71S4iS9rFcUDl+yuymsuCsaJ219Sa8jTOvU7JyL8/HJocG56LEVhN207DoFFRZIR4zlN8Xkp08= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1789462721; c=relaxed/simple; bh=N/ier17d2Lbzu0Q1g9bHoRNxFUZJ/Lp4YCLJMq3+HeY=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=nm/rKe9Mex9Dj93RdXbyHw6ymgA8qPRaaIv+5Bg9bnpz2i0zBOjlzzXtHlCDXbZdvIDDgx4LBP88+oSnDfqTTDpiLK0S638yHmvLtVxpg06ontQ9nsDzjoTb+RhnGYI0gW61vTElfs8w+fLHwrFKB8Mw8FMLNiRzwvtNFukSJUQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=nXtrJz5m; 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="nXtrJz5m" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 21EAD1F00893; Tue, 15 Sep 2026 08:58:40 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1789462720; bh=fCav2b52nfiCHR1uqbuoTkNoT4p4dJiOfR/bWB2E0FU=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=nXtrJz5meT+uT5qLDFGZIzgkSlELWm2LZkf87h3QkYQw1vaQga1OYcCf1u4Efum4c mvCgppsw9B3lCEW2ukLjcPXcmLUaffXzaUaGZiCHSxg5etcmFZBqdT/tC81+YA1sgi NUhZe/ovjdSFFtidtm49xAs1zrhvI7y24jAno5uHcbU/vYDBsAsnuibtR6kQhz+GBf 1LjDX7g9oVWGTIuXa0yF7WGCcLZNCEI8DxMb8WoHmpkVncAjuQaXc/KnYwXMvWWTG7 XLBUY46VpQftKeaGqjT8SEx10xiVgMZX5txTfaUlcDDwdbOKot4qgcJrltn2Fms8xo A30FJjz33d8AQ== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] dt-bindings: soc: qcom: add xiaomi,taoyao-pmic-glink compatible Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Stanislav Zaikin" Cc: conor+dt@kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, robh@kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20260915084901.56622-2-zstaseg@gmail.com> References: <20260915084901.56622-1-zstaseg@gmail.com> <20260915084901.56622-2-zstaseg@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2026 08:58:39 +0000 Message-Id: <20260915085840.21EAD1F00893@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: - [Low] dt-bindings: mutually exclusive board and SoC compatible strings -- commit c55f57a1517ca9ce82e67923ff8313d8fc20239f Author: Stanislav Zaikin dt-bindings: soc: qcom: add xiaomi,taoyao-pmic-glink compatible This commit adds the xiaomi,taoyao-pmic-glink compatible string for the Xiaomi 12 Lite 5G to the pmic-glink binding. > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,pmic-glink.y= aml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,pmic-glink.yaml > index 16ad4f5698fc3..8ca057c4e3e61 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,pmic-glink.yaml > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,pmic-glink.yaml > @@ -41,6 +41,7 @@ properties: > - items: > - enum: > - qcom,sm7325-pmic-glink > + - xiaomi,taoyao-pmic-glink > - const: qcom,qcm6490-pmic-glink > - const: qcom,pmic-glink [Severity: Low] Does this force the compatible strings to be mutually exclusive and limit t= he fallback chain to exactly 3 items? Standard Device Tree design dictates that compatible strings should be orde= red from most-specific (board) to least-specific (SoC, generic). A board-specif= ic compatible string for a subsystem should fall back to the SoC-specific stri= ng if they share the same underlying hardware. By adding xiaomi,taoyao-pmic-glink to the same enum as qcom,sm7325-pmic-gli= nk in a 3-item list, the schema forces the DT author to choose one or the othe= r, preventing a complete fallback chain. As a result, the DT is forced to drop the qcom,sm7325-pmic-glink fallback string to pass schema validation. This breaks the standard DT fallback chai= n. Should the schema instead define a separate 4-item list under oneOf to enfo= rce the board string, followed by the SoC string, followed by the base fallback= s? --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260915084901.5662= 2-1-zstaseg@gmail.com?part=3D1