Re: [PATCH v10 1/2] dt-bindings: hwmon: temperature: add support for EMC1812

[Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>]

On Wed, Apr 29, 2026 at 01:24:57PM +0000, sashiko-bot@kernel.org wrote:
> Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to consider:
> - [Low] The restriction for channel 4 on the `microchip,emc1814` compatible uses `properties: channel@4: false`, which violates the dt-schema meta-schema and will cause `dt_binding_check` to fail.
> - [Low] The device tree example uses an undefined phandle label `<&vdd>`, which will cause `dt_binding_check` to fail with a `dtc` compilation error.
> --
> 
> commit 6d9c42d650361ba383a1097abf05acff51bac85d
> Author: Marius Cristea <marius.cristea@microchip.com>
> 
> dt-bindings: hwmon: temperature: add support for EMC1812
> 
> This commit adds the devicetree schema for the Microchip EMC1812/13/14/15/33
> Multichannel Low-Voltage Remote Diode Sensor Family. It specifies the properties
> for each hardware variant, including differences in channel count and features
> like anti-parallel diodes.
> 
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/microchip,emc1812.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/microchip,emc1812.yaml
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..1a273621db82
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/microchip,emc1812.yaml
> [ ... ]
> > +  # EMC1814: 1 Internal, 3 External Channels, Supports APD,
> > +  # parasitic-res-on-channel1-2: on both channel 1 & 2
> > +  # parasitic-res-on-channel3-4: for channel 3
> > +  - if:
> > +      properties:
> > +        compatible:
> > +          const: microchip,emc1814
> > +    then:
> > +      properties:
> > +        channel@4: false
> 
> Should this restriction be placed under patternProperties instead of
> properties?
> 
> In dt-schema, keys under properties must not contain the @ symbol used for
> device tree unit addresses. Using channel@4: false under properties will result
> in a meta-schema validation regression during make dt_binding_check.
> 
> To properly forbid the node, it could be written under patternProperties,
> such as "^channel@4$": false.

No.

> 
> [ ... ]
> > +examples:
> > +  - |
> > +    i2c {
> > +        #address-cells = <1>;
> > +        #size-cells = <0>;
> > +
> > +        temperature-sensor@4c {
> > +            compatible = "microchip,emc1813";
> > +            reg = <0x4c>;
> > +
> > +            #address-cells = <1>;
> > +            #size-cells = <0>;
> > +
> > +            microchip,parasitic-res-on-channel1-2;
> > +
> > +            vdd-supply = <&vdd>;
> 
> Does this example need a node defining the vdd label?
> 
> The assignment uses the phandle <&vdd>, but the label is not defined anywhere in
> the example block. When make dt_binding_check extracts and compiles the
> generated DTS, this will result in a dtc compilation regression because the
> phandle cannot be resolved.
> 
> Adding a dummy regulator node with the vdd: label would fix this.

No.