Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: mfd: convert rk805 pinctrl to DT schema

[sashiko-bot@kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Medium] dt-bindings: mfd: rk805: missing required pins property in schema
--

commit 4d34a5e42e890c7b86f9784a47518ab08b74d070
Author: Quchaosheng <quchaosheng000406@163.com>

dt-bindings: mfd: convert rk805 pinctrl to DT schema

This commit converts the pinctrl-rk805.txt binding to device tree schema by
folding the pinmux description directly into rockchip,rk805.yaml. It also
adds the missing -pins$ child node pattern property to correctly validate
pin configuration nodes.

> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/rockchip,rk805.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/rockchip,rk805.yaml
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/rockchip,rk805.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/rockchip,rk805.yaml
> @@ -86,6 +86,31 @@ properties:
>          unevaluatedProperties: false
>      unevaluatedProperties: false
>  
> +patternProperties:
> +  '-pins$':
> +    type: object
> +    description:
> +      The RK805 has two output-only GPIOs which can be muxed to the GPIO
> +      function and driven low or high at boot.
> +    additionalProperties: false
> +
> +    properties:
> +      pins:
> +        description:
> +          List of GPIO pins to configure.
> +        items:
> +          enum: [gpio0, gpio1]
> +        minItems: 1
> +        maxItems: 2
> +
> +      function:
> +        description:
> +          The RK805 only supports the GPIO function.
> +        enum: [gpio]
> +
> +      output-low: true
> +      output-high: true
> +

[Severity: Medium]
Does this new patternProperties.-pins$ schema block allow empty or malformed
pin configuration nodes to pass validation?

If a device tree author creates an empty or malformed pinctrl node matching
the -pins$ pattern, it will silently pass dt_binding_check and dtbs_check
validation because there is no constraint mandating the pins property. The
older text binding previously documented this property as required.

Should a required: [ pins ] constraint be added to the -pins$ object
definition to ensure the schema strictly enforces valid pin configurations?

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260923025302.374919-1-quchaosheng000406@163.com?part=1