From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; t=1793851779; b=zfRh86FGjFiYgmY3F6IcwOsEiBpW0i7VQiEFGSloM80596gQSd9VHMfHKKqJutWHeBzU MhoGpu2tF514Zp5xMGipqiSwbyT/gkfm8Z6w89ZkfGyungoaamlIxPPNn4M6+191okpgr mDQTnxK0wVMq954zL1SAAuulm5eQOZ8lzOdsfjv3/Ujoypp+OdwvbbaS4p3mHoNPE1yrs WtS4J6B3aR7LEWgP+OuKxBTmBhTY/4pMg8UUT+N1ox9il0C4DUZdUHBMqjmPRJiiBeb07 QXKFiDhXtT6iHBS2T4ZkAE4181POX4vAQuMCvvnqEg9C9AFEXGZ6Vvynx+zmWqmUTRQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1793851779; h=Received:DKIM-Signature:Message-ID:From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Date; bh=gILZcq9VEcz3UUom4qJ/yX8BZAhWIY+hh9gyo4CF+Yw=; b=CTWMsIYHrg2xgenT1d6ukDGvYB89ezWsGyW47zNun7wrgFXCPC6Fst2wxPXUQCPoaaNz nyyAS8djYaNp5I3Bq915ZNpB86wFHmuMCiJrxuWKNsLbc6RQd73nWihF0LfI8MzUkFoG8 nuq3+beQ8liED3EK7jkN78b4sZiR0ofDuOGGXT7YcfIO4XYrbV5RSfXNy01v0Le91k4g+ xnC2P/ne5/5weM/PSP+Hz/qWU4fYmYn+JOUalA3Acy9fidXBwcoUr1QtmuVlRgaJ43Ph6 cHpvBSR1LtcsTXmXkMMpukWy9DxKaYIXZsnQJFQZIZShqcJl+RbtM8lW/3Hi8d7uxEg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20260515 header.b=FL1ExOEL; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=100.103.45.18 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (quasi.space.kernel.org [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 14AD9606A326; Thu, 5 Nov 2026 04:09:38 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20260515 header.b=FL1ExOEL Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 64D511F000C1; Thu, 5 Nov 2026 04:09:38 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1793851778; bh=gILZcq9VEcz3UUom4qJ/yX8BZAhWIY+hh9gyo4CF+Yw=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=FL1ExOEL+gve6wWhxMpTqeBV+QlVI2GHgI0vuDRGndeiCnGT6PZ8JXYkFWsrePoCR z8kswVxNKcRSy1LZQqZONqqu2XZwr7R4LYEsft9PflEqxQvlFmEdkAVAFIymDYahbj lqYfMbY3Lo2PchQjQzqnBNzI5/5ih71KZL1YnlQpMJt3mKroYCpX3amzkHThUZKoS0 C/tQ0RIE4SMuK1jGTTIFd0W9QbLuSAsjZ7nTnJ5AizKij0QCAXt2zEjiAiY8v43Nep 9HtAvLW9tKxotMnpWhLeDSGL4rOrTI1XXVdJ2xpXKov/ab7PGUt1I12f20QCRa17gl Nfszu95pOwKhQ== Message-ID: From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/11] dt-bindings: gpio: vf610: fix clock requirements per SoC Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: =?utf-8?b?UGVuZyBGYW4gKE9TUyk=?= Cc: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, imx@lists.linux.dev, robh@kernel.org, conor+dt@kernel.org, Frank.Li@kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20261105-gpio-vf610-fixes-v3-1-504e19de5ad5@nxp.com> References: <20261105-gpio-vf610-fixes-v3-0-504e19de5ad5@nxp.com> <20261105-gpio-vf610-fixes-v3-1-504e19de5ad5@nxp.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2026 04:09:37 +0000 X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Owner: Precedence: list Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(= s) to consider: - [Low] dt-bindings: gpio: vf610: unwieldy per-compatible conditionals in s= chema -- commit ea7be1f0505474b900ce5dd27177e80fd2222683 Author: Peng Fan dt-bindings: gpio: vf610: fix clock requirements per SoC This commit updates the gpio-vf610 device tree binding schema to enforce SoC-specific clock requirements for VF610, i.MX7ULP, and i.MX8ULP (and its derivatives) via conditional blocks in allOf. > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-vf610.yaml b/Doc= umentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-vf610.yaml > index a31f64b6d40b4..d1d5315ee1648 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-vf610.yaml > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-vf610.yaml > @@ -57,11 +57,13 @@ properties: > maxItems: 32 > =20 > clocks: > + minItems: 1 > items: > - description: SoC GPIO clock > - description: SoC PORT clock > =20 > clock-names: > + minItems: 1 > items: > - const: gpio > - const: port > @@ -117,6 +119,45 @@ allOf: > items: > - description: GPIO register base address > =20 > + - if: > + properties: > + compatible: > + const: fsl,vf610-gpio > + then: > + properties: > + clocks: false > + clock-names: false > + > + - if: > + properties: > + compatible: > + contains: > + const: fsl,imx7ulp-gpio > + then: > + properties: > + clocks: > + minItems: 2 > + clock-names: > + minItems: 2 > + required: > + - clocks > + - clock-names > + > + - if: > + properties: > + compatible: > + contains: > + const: fsl,imx8ulp-gpio > + then: > + properties: > + clocks: > + maxItems: 1 > + clock-names: > + maxItems: 1 > + required: > + - clocks > + - clock-names [Severity: Low] As reported by Sashiko on v2 [1], this isn't a bug, but in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-vf610.yaml, the fsl,imx8ulp-gpio family (including fsl,imx93-gpio, fsl,imx94-gpio, and fsl,imx95-gpio) does not share a compatible fallback with fsl,vf610-gpio or fsl,imx7ulp-gpio, and almost every hardware resource property now differs across the variants: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-vf610.yaml: - if: properties: compatible: contains: enum: - fsl,vf610-gpio - fsl,imx7ulp-gpio then: properties: interrupts: maxItems: 1 reg: items: - description: PORT register base address - description: GPIO register base address else: properties: interrupts: minItems: 2 reg: items: - description: GPIO register base address Along with reg (2 items on VF610/i.MX7ULP vs 1 item on i.MX8ULP) and interrupts (1 item on VF610/i.MX7ULP vs 2 items on i.MX8ULP), clocks and clock-names are disallowed on VF610, require 2 items on i.MX7ULP, and requi= re 1 item on i.MX8ULP. Rather than relaxing the top-level clocks and clock-names properties to minItems: 1 and adding three more per-compatible if-then blocks in allOf, would it be cleaner to split the fsl,imx8ulp-gpio binding into a separate schema document? [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20261103-gpio-vf610-fixes-v2-1-7c71fb36e184@n= xp.com --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20261105-gpio-vf610= -fixes-v3-0-504e19de5ad5@nxp.com?part=3D1