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 E45A53F1AD7; Sun, 27 Sep 2026 13:39:09 +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=1790516351; cv=none; b=uT4L6qC+TV7hNscXksvJym1DBdhlWSX0o3sukyOYJWmn/GmAyOfh3Lym7GAiH6i3XIJ8CgeVbQqSpc/q//8IirGc0IKHJmhCiO1pa66p5JODnW1q4Bzq0ocFpIjkYV08kbxn2mrdkW39tkX3JnH9B645Bg6c7ACh/JZm/xtZCRc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790516351; c=relaxed/simple; bh=oMJ1fkPGutiRVvHe4zIu+G8O40wHQrjefNKjUDOwHBg=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=I6/rodaFhDVe0/dilM1m6rHp0D2860cnE93S951yIqg6MY9u+MLeuqMbBRvMvlZan7v+SSVE6VYczDIUrdfFGSzsDqbeXuZo1U4c3qY/jC5oyyoHYaRIStGxclGaD/dn9D5lo8Jkx8aveP2k+HsJlhiOtUOVo99G424ilSgX2AY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=FYmDilGJ; 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="FYmDilGJ" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BE52E1F000FF; Sun, 27 Sep 2026 13:39:08 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1790516349; bh=QkwGNTsfExRzWNhwQoFHwKORlde5wqI3C2aUYTeC14I=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=FYmDilGJjx2fhnGwo942MeRvX8PBXSjkoTubEcvO1M6evJmUE1RQXQ8d8/Yy0JXRK AE3SDhkLLZvwpemb/hp7NYsHcVnAfWYFBGtIOsWafctfEwXo1DIffwFMJXYBgxNLfr OTWcCxjpPg5+7MTmIoN70Sx/RzrjlpfS83jLa8Zz3e4MhGaqEXWd/nVH1QLGbUdlbp i7/KbKfMVjd4juZS/rRVa1SO72u7XdFKfWOISbWovwlVsVR7rxBqrRSRCGvR/OG3Xr /5YT+RF1HPIBl7QxEFjm3bw/fo/nK7QPhte4fFm0h0PKlDDnyFrTCD7Cz09p5urW3H UCOZXY3DvxkSg== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] dt-bindings: clock: gpio-gate-clock: Add a new compatible string Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Vyacheslav Yurkov" Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org, robh@kernel.org, conor+dt@kernel.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20260927-feature-clock-guard-v6-1-007983b13ec2@bruker.com> References: <20260927-feature-clock-guard-v6-0-007983b13ec2@bruker.com> <20260927-feature-clock-guard-v6-1-007983b13ec2@bruker.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2026 13:39:08 +0000 Message-Id: <20260927133908.BE52E1F000FF@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: clock: gpio-gate-clock: compatible string mismatch bre= aks validation -- commit 2b809675a6d656fd8b8fcf12572b9880f2905a0c Author: Vyacheslav Yurkov dt-bindings: clock: gpio-gate-clock: Add a new compatible string Extend the binding to be used also for gpio-locked-fixed-clock. A GPIO-locked fixed clock provider exposes a fixed-rate clock whose availability depends on one or more GPIO lock-status signals. > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/gpio-gate-clock.yaml= b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/gpio-gate-clock.yaml > index d09d0e3f0c6ec..f44fdb17b627b 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/gpio-gate-clock.yaml > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/gpio-gate-clock.yaml > @@ -11,7 +11,9 @@ maintainers: > =20 > properties: > compatible: > - const: gpio-gate-clock > + enum: > + - gpio-gate-clock > + - gpio-locked-clock [Severity: Low] Does this missing "-fixed" suffix introduce a regression in validation? The commit message, conditional block, and example below all use "gpio-locked-fixed-clock", which will fail schema validation against this enum. [ ... ] > +allOf: > + - if: > + properties: > + compatible: > + const: gpio-gate-clock > + then: > + required: > + - enable-gpios > + - if: > + properties: > + compatible: > + const: gpio-locked-fixed-clock [Severity: Low] Does this compatible string mismatch introduce a regression in schema check= s? If the hardware uses "gpio-locked-clock" from the enum above, this conditional won't match and will allow invalid nodes to pass validation silently by bypassing the required "enabled-gpios" check. > + then: > + required: > + - enabled-gpios > =20 > additionalProperties: false [ ... ] > @@ -40,3 +61,10 @@ examples: > #clock-cells =3D <0>; > enable-gpios =3D <&gpio 1 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>; > }; > + > + clk_gpio_locked { > + compatible =3D "gpio-locked-fixed-clock"; [Severity: Low] Will this compatible string cause a regression during dt_binding_check? The example uses a string that does not match the allowed enum values defined above. > + #clock-cells =3D <0>; > + clocks =3D <&pll>; > + enabled-gpios =3D <&gpio0 4 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>; > + }; --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260927-feature-cl= ock-guard-v6-0-007983b13ec2@bruker.com?part=3D1