Re: [PATCH v5 03/12] dt-bindings: clock: add Ambarella CV75 RCT

[email protected]
Newsgroups dev.linux.lists.mfd,org.kernel.vger.linux-clk,org.kernel.vger.linux-devicetree
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Medium] The Device Tree binding intentionally omits `#reset-cells` for a hardware block that acts as a reset provider, violating the core DT principle that bindings must describe hardware rather than software/driver support.
--

--- Patch [3]: [PATCH v5 03/12] dt-bindings: clock: add Ambarella CV75 RCT ---
commit 74b3b598f48fd3b6837b5a870e3274a514495c94
Author: Long Zhao <[email protected]>

dt-bindings: clock: add Ambarella CV75 RCT

This commit introduces the Device Tree binding and clock ID header for the
Ambarella CV75 RCT block. It currently describes only the clock-provider
functionality, intentionally omitting reset properties.

> This initial binding describes only the clock-provider functionality.
> Reset-controller support is outside scope of this series, so #reset-cells
> property is intentionally omitted.

[Severity: Medium]
Device tree bindings are expected to describe hardware rather than software
driver support. Because this hardware block acts as a reset provider, should
#reset-cells be documented and allowed in the schema now?

> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/ambarella,cv75-rct.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/ambarella,cv75-rct.yaml
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000000..eb5956fc32bc4
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/ambarella,cv75-rct.yaml

[ ... ]

> +required:
> +  - compatible
> +  - reg
> +  - clocks
> +  - clock-names
> +  - "#clock-cells"
> +
> +additionalProperties: false

[Severity: Medium]
Because additionalProperties is set to false without defining #reset-cells
in the schema, any complete device tree node that accurately models the
hardware's reset capabilities will fail schema validation.

If #reset-cells is later added as a required property when reset support is
implemented, won't it break backward compatibility with device trees created
against this initial schema?

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/[email protected]?part=3
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.