Re: [PATCH 1/4] dt-bindings: cache: qcom,llcc: allow optional second interrupt for LCP/SRP ECC

[sashiko-bot@kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Low] dt-bindings: missing maxItems constraint for legacy interrupts
--

commit 50febfa0c04f4bae15f676db2e6662c8855b0e3c
Author: Faiyaz Mohammed <faiyaz.mohammed@oss.qualcomm.com>

dt-bindings: cache: qcom,llcc: allow optional second interrupt for LCP/SRP ECC

QCM2390 (Shikra) has an LCP/SRP block that signals DDR DRAM ECC errors
on a dedicated interrupt line separate from the existing TRP/DRP cache
ECC interrupt. This commit allows an optional second interrupt in the
LLCC binding and enforces both are present for qcom,shikra-llcc.

> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cache/qcom,llcc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cache/qcom,llcc.yaml
> index 2141e5d4de63b..3546cf7c25195 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cache/qcom,llcc.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cache/qcom,llcc.yaml
> @@ -64,7 +64,17 @@ properties:
>      maxItems: 18
>  
>    interrupts:
> -    maxItems: 1
> +    minItems: 1
> +    items:
> +      - description: TRP/DRP LLCC cache ECC (ddrss_apps_interrupt[2])
> +      - description: LCP/SRP DDR DRAM ECC (ddrss_apps_interrupt[1]), present
> +          on platforms with an LCP/SRP block such as QCM2390

[Severity: Low]
Does this implicitly raise the maximum number of interrupts to 2 for all
compatible strings?

Since maxItems: 1 was removed globally, a device tree for older hardware 
could erroneously define two interrupts without failing schema validation.

> +
> +  interrupt-names:
> +    minItems: 1
> +    items:
> +      - const: llcc-ecc
> +      - const: llcc-lcp-ecc
>  
>    memory-region:
>      maxItems: 1

[ ... ]

> @@ -234,6 +244,20 @@ allOf:
>              - const: llcc1_base
>              - const: llcc_broadcast_base
>  
> +  - if:
> +      properties:
> +        compatible:
> +          contains:
> +            const: qcom,shikra-llcc
> +    then:
> +      properties:
> +        interrupts:
> +          minItems: 2
> +        interrupt-names:
> +          minItems: 2
> +      required:
> +        - interrupt-names
> +

[Severity: Low]
Should there be an else clause here to restrict legacy platforms back to
maxItems: 1 for interrupts and interrupt-names?

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20261014-master-v1-0-aba3cfcfbac9@oss.qualcomm.com?part=1