Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: thermal: mediatek: Make resets optional for MT8196

[AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>]

On 7/21/26 13:01, sashiko-bot@kernel.org wrote:
> Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
> - [High] Driver-Binding Mismatch: The `lvts_thermal` driver unconditionally requires the `resets` property, which causes probe failure if omitted on MT8196.

No, that's not true.

> --
> 
> --- Patch [1]: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: thermal: mediatek: Make resets optional for MT8196 ---
> commit 8c88985c870e0f500a0c1636d7b632cee772d3c6
> Author: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>
> 
> dt-bindings: thermal: mediatek: Make resets optional for MT8196
> 
> This commit updates the device tree binding for mediatek,lvts-thermal to
> make the resets property optional for the MT8196 AP and MCU platforms.
> This prevents hardware resets that could result in thermal protect
> shutdowns or permanent system slowdowns.
> 
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/mediatek,lvts-thermal.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/mediatek,lvts-thermal.yaml
>> index 9752351306703..29f431fcdcd5f 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/mediatek,lvts-thermal.yaml
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/mediatek,lvts-thermal.yaml
>> @@ -94,12 +94,23 @@ allOf:
>>           nvmem-cell-names:
>>             minItems: 2
>>   
>> +  - if:
>> +      properties:
>> +        compatible:
>> +          not:
>> +            contains:
>> +              enum:
>> +                - mediatek,mt8196-lvts-ap
>> +                - mediatek,mt8196-lvts-mcu
>> +    then:
>> +      required:
>> +        - resets
>> +
>>   required:
>>     - compatible
>>     - reg
>>     - interrupts
>>     - clocks
>> -  - resets
> 
> [Severity: High]
> Will omitting the resets property cause a probe regression?
> 
> Looking at lvts_probe() in drivers/thermal/mediatek/lvts_thermal.c, the driver
> unconditionally requires the reset control:
> 
> 	lvts_td->reset = devm_reset_control_get_by_index(dev, 0);


The driver uses devm_reset_control_get_optional_exclusive() in commit 2.

This is a false positive.

> 	if (IS_ERR(lvts_td->reset))
> 		return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(lvts_td->reset), "Failed to get reset control\n");
> 
> If the property is omitted to conform to this new schema on MT8196 boards,
> devm_reset_control_get_by_index() returns ERR_PTR(-ENOENT) and the driver
> aborts probing.
> 
> Should the driver be updated to use devm_reset_control_get_optional_exclusive()
> or similar to match this binding change?
>