Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: thermal: Add Qualcomm MBG thermal monitor support

[Sachin Gupta <sachin.gupta@oss.qualcomm.com>]

On 6/1/2026 5:00 PM, sashiko-bot@kernel.org wrote:
> Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
> - [Low] The PMIC schema restricts the standard 'temperature-sensor@' node name exclusively to the new MBG TM binding, causing false positive validation failures for standard-compliant legacy nodes.
> --
> 
> commit 1c6b45c4d32f87b04fb868a977041acc92be3854
> Author: Satya Priya Kakitapalli <quic_skakitap@quicinc.com>
> 
> dt-bindings: thermal: Add Qualcomm MBG thermal monitor support
>      
> This commit adds device tree bindings for the Qualcomm Master Bandgap (MBG)
> temperature alarm peripheral found on the PM8775 PMIC. It introduces a new
> schema for the MBG thermal monitor and maps it in the SPMI PMIC bindings.
> 
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom,spmi-pmic.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom,spmi-pmic.yaml
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom,spmi-pmic.yaml
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom,spmi-pmic.yaml
>> @@ -193,6 +193,10 @@ patternProperties:
>>       type: object
>>       $ref: /schemas/thermal/qcom,spmi-temp-alarm.yaml#
>>   
>> +  "^temperature-sensor@[0-9a-f]+$":
>> +    type: object
>> +    $ref: /schemas/thermal/qcom-spmi-mbg-tm.yaml#
> 
> [Severity: Low]
> Does mapping this generic pattern exclusively to the MBG thermal monitor
> schema cause validation conflicts with other thermal sensors?
> 
> Since temperature-sensor is the standard generic node name, other thermal
> sensors under the PMIC (like qcom,spmi-temp-alarm) might use it. If a node
> uses temperature-sensor@a00 for a standard SPMI temp alarm, wouldn't it be
> evaluated solely against this MBG-specific schema and fail with a compatible
> string mismatch error?
> 
> Would it be better to structure this using a oneOf block to allow multiple
> applicable thermal bindings to share the standard node name?
> 

The reported case does not seem valid for this binding update.

temperature-sensor@... is intended for the MBG TM block 
(qcom-spmi-mbg-tm), while the existing SPMI temp-alarm block uses 
temp-alarm@... and its own binding (qcom,spmi-temp-alarm). So in 
practice they are distinct node names for distinct peripherals, and a 
normal temp-alarm node is
not expected to be described as temperature-sensor@....

Because of that, this should not cause a real conflict for standard PMIC 
DTS usage. A qcom,spmi-temp-alarm node named temperature-sensor@... 
would be a misnamed node rather than a valid legacy form we need to 
preserve.

Thanks,
Sachin