Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] dt-bindings: hwmon: pmbus: add Delta E50SN12051 binding

[sashiko-bot@kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Low] The binding description violates Devicetree principles by describing software instead of hardware. It explicitly states 'The driver supports...', which is an OS-specific software description.
- [Low] The Devicetree example uses the Linux-specific subsystem name 'hwmon@40' for the node name instead of a generic functional name.
--

commit 8f686eaa80cf8986d09fe9ea7dca7debf1c51cb1
Author: Colin Huang <u8813345@gmail.com>

dt-bindings: hwmon: pmbus: add Delta E50SN12051 binding

This commit introduces the devicetree binding schema for the Delta E50SN12051
PMBus-compliant sensor.

> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/pmbus/delta,e50sn12051.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/pmbus/delta,e50sn12051.yaml
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/pmbus/delta,e50sn12051.yaml
[ ... ]
> +description: |
> +  This binding describes the Delta E50SN12051 PMBus sensor.
> +  The driver supports reading voltage, current, and temperature
> +  using the PMBus interface.

This isn't a bug, but should the description focus purely on the hardware
rather than mentioning what the driver supports? Devicetree bindings are
generally expected to be OS-agnostic hardware descriptions.

[ ... ]
> +examples:
> +  - |
> +    i2c {
> +        #address-cells = <1>;
> +        #size-cells = <0>;
> +
> +        hwmon@40 {

Is hwmon@40 the most appropriate node name here? The devicetree specification
usually recommends using generic names that reflect the function of the
hardware, such as sensor@40, rather than OS-specific subsystem names like
hwmon.

> +            compatible = "delta,e50sn12051";
> +            reg = <0x40>;
> +        };
> +    };

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260430-add-e50sn12051-v3-0-f6d4e043ec7c@gmail.com?part=1