From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0156C579822; Wed, 23 Sep 2026 20:29:01 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790195349; cv=none; b=Wj0/mfb69l/40Je8TmVh5gAoD6HUGzbsdK7cMNDrGheNLZadxBDTv1s4cPYqPSRsOJkjKxii7+1wbI3xNXvVGg5FRYThztMSThRhXseGfcTFBfR9uyvLf4d8IBe1hoQf52ybjMi3jWcXRTKOaHE5+DUVD3ZSv5FNvIqMZmbhgIw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790195349; c=relaxed/simple; bh=aNms1UO9qu+24WXImZlDmhMF3+xEojLyVGW8hUnBInw=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=gk1DQkgLM+qmmWBIbjsqSXtAB8lc+EwyzKqorjYQCItp8eGZsSeCcpBHh0hfX5NzCUoHlfAJBU+H3xOser+suZFGvPRC2IbSwla8GxVeZ6eo7Whud9fTPvokaMSnyKPzl5Aa17H84Q9YyIaInB9wf4rPj3o7zfoXMtkWBiWruq0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=l7vWF3Uw; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="l7vWF3Uw" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7CF911F00893; Wed, 23 Sep 2026 20:28:54 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1790195334; bh=TjMxjX8Yyu6QN0Rlp5EVyC3hwKuo5nklZTlBNRlVAu4=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=l7vWF3UwTihB6jFv4vxAGSh7AMgy/LkbTCXhcHr3f4M0/M9WzmmPMLCyI1f21mNAf AD2bxxG+dgMixK6XK8UrM03+LcIaDhptXlPEhEqXAJYDiMDxJx8HilKDw+6iBu4Cpt i2i6MQX+5oz1BA+W1KQZCDEyIrE5wxLCxT4oFuS1jVBWCRgI0sv4PKfc5mvU3ubwk0 cUaQL0y8A7YQ/7hnNs/fOpk52dftaPqxTFeRG8+RLB6QjTk91ZL0fCAuE+/xISp1U9 o9VjIRj4rNHQYn3eIMN0pCLgORemp+aMLRmyl0RdZPS44UauZREcEBHpr/y4+G3k5Q Jewn4eRzTeFiw== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 05/11] dt-bindings: rtc: sun6i-a31: add Allwinner B288 Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Pablo Mazzini" Cc: linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org, linux-sunxi@lists.linux.dev, robh@kernel.org, conor+dt@kernel.org, "Alexandre Belloni" , devicetree@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20260923201701.43391-5-pmazzini@gmail.com> References: <20260923201701.43391-1-pmazzini@gmail.com> <20260923201701.43391-5-pmazzini@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2026 20:28:54 +0000 Message-Id: <20260923202854.7CF911F00893@smtp.kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-sunxi@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(= s) to consider: - [Low] dt-bindings: missing clock-output-names schema constraint for b288 -- commit d061a16a5e55b66a00315843c7f4655412cd0e5f Author: Pablo Mazzini dt-bindings: rtc: sun6i-a31: add Allwinner B288 The B288 RTC wires one alarm interrupt, not two. > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/allwinner,sun6i-a31-rt= c.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/allwinner,sun6i-a31-rtc.yaml > index f2b91186ed377..1699e3576b915 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/allwinner,sun6i-a31-rtc.yaml > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/allwinner,sun6i-a31-rtc.yaml > @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ properties: > - enum: > - allwinner,sun6i-a31-rtc > - allwinner,sun8i-a23-rtc > + - allwinner,sun8i-b288-rtc > - allwinner,sun8i-h3-rtc > - allwinner,sun8i-r40-rtc > - allwinner,sun8i-v3-rtc [ ... ] > @@ -162,6 +163,7 @@ allOf: > compatible: > contains: > enum: > + - allwinner,sun8i-b288-rtc > - allwinner,sun8i-r40-rtc > - allwinner,sun50i-h616-rtc > - allwinner,sun50i-r329-rtc [Severity: Low] Does this new b288 compatible string also need to be added to one of the clock-output-names conditional blocks? It is added here for the interrupts constraint, but omitted from the if blocks managing clock-output-names. Without an explicit block for the b288, invalid device trees specifying the wrong number of clocks might silently pass validation due to the generic top-level fallback limits. For example, other variants in this file are explicitly constrained: allOf: - if: properties: compatible: contains: enum: - allwinner,sun8i-a23-rtc - allwinner,sun8i-r40-rtc - allwinner,sun8i-v3-rtc then: properties: clock-output-names: minItems: 2 maxItems: 2 Should a similar constraint (or false) be applied for the b288 variant? --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260923201701.4339= 1-1-pmazzini@gmail.com?part=3D5