Re: [PATCH net-next v3 01/12] dt-bindings: net: airoha: Add EN7581 ethernet-ports properties

[Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>]

This is an AI-generated review of your patch. The human sending this
email says "For your consideration."
---
dt-bindings: net: airoha: Add EN7581 ethernet-ports properties

This commit introduces the ethernet-port property to model a net_device
connected via an external arbiter to the GDM3 or GDM4 ports on EN7581
and AN7583 SoCs.

> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/airoha,en7581-eth.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/airoha,en7581-eth.yaml
> index fbe2ddcdd909c..ebbd433e9c9fb 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/airoha,en7581-eth.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/airoha,en7581-eth.yaml
> @@ -130,6 +130,30 @@ patternProperties:
>          maximum: 4
>          description: GMAC port identifier
>  
> +      '#address-cells':
> +        const: 1
> +      '#size-cells':
> +        const: 0
> +
> +    patternProperties:
> +      "^ethernet-port@[0-5]$":

The commit message states that GDM1 and GDM2 do not support connection
with the external arbiter. However, since this pattern property appears to
be placed inside the generic ^ethernet@[1-4]$ block, does this allow a
device tree to incorrectly configure ethernet-port subnodes on ethernet@1
or ethernet@2 and still pass schema validation?

Could this be restricted to GDM3 and GDM4, perhaps by splitting the
patternProperties or using an if/then block based on the reg property?

> +        type: object
> +        unevaluatedProperties: false
> +        $ref: ethernet-controller.yaml#

Does referencing ethernet-controller.yaml cause a validation conflict here?

The ethernet-controller.yaml schema enforces a strict nodename pattern
of ^ethernet(@.*)?$. Since these new nodes use the -port suffix and are
named ethernet-port@X, will they unconditionally fail the node name
validation enforced by the referenced schema during dt_binding_check?

[ ... ]
-- 
pw-bot: cr