Re: [PATCH v9 3/6] dt-bindings: pinctrl: mediatek,mt6779-pinctrl: Add MT6795

[sashiko-bot@kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Medium] dt-bindings: pinctrl: mt6795 interrupts maxItems schema conflict
--

commit e88236860cd50ab5c2393f176ac891e2544b938c
Author: Yassine Oudjana <y.oudjana@protonmail.com>

dt-bindings: pinctrl: mediatek,mt6779-pinctrl: Add MT6795

Combine MT6795 pin controller document into MT6779 one. In the
process, amend the example with comments and additional pinctrl
nodes from the MT6795 example, replace the current interrupts
property description with the one from the MT6795 document since
it makes more sense and define its items using conditionals
as they now vary between variants. Also use conditionals to define
valid values for the drive-strength property as well as items of
the interrupts property for each variant since they are different
on MT6795.

> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/mediatek,mt6779-pinctrl.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/mediatek,mt6779-pinctrl.yaml
> index 4dc9504e24ad5..4df6971030416 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/mediatek,mt6779-pinctrl.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/mediatek,mt6779-pinctrl.yaml

[ ... ]

> @@ -81,6 +83,45 @@ allOf:
>              - const: iocfg_lt
>              - const: iocfg_tl
>              - const: eint
> +
> +      patternProperties:
> +        '-pins$':
> +          patternProperties:
> +            '^pins':
> +              properties:
> +                drive-strength:
> +                  enum: [2, 4, 8, 12, 16]
> +
> +  - if:
> +      properties:
> +        compatible:
> +          contains:
> +            const: mediatek,mt6795-pinctrl
> +    then:
> +      properties:
> +        reg:
> +          minItems: 2
> +          maxItems: 2
> +
> +        reg-names:
> +          items:
> +            - const: base
> +            - const: eint
> +
> +        interrupts:
> +          minItems: 1
> +          items:
> +            - description: EINT interrupt
> +            - description: EINT event_b interrupt

[Severity: Medium]
Does this conditional block create a schema validation conflict for MT6795
device tree nodes?

The top-level properties definition for interrupts enforces a global constraint:

  interrupts:
    maxItems: 1
    description:
      Specifies the summary IRQ.

Since JSON schema constraints apply conjunctively, the conditional block here
that attempts to define and allow 2 interrupt items will be inherently blocked
by the root maxItems constraint. Will this unconditionally fail validation for
MT6795 nodes that provide two interrupts?

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260925-mt6735-pinctrl-v9-v9-0-bfb19d8bb87c@protonmail.com?part=3