Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Low] Incomplete device tree binding schema for MT6320 sub-nodes.
- [Low] MFD subsystem naming convention violation in commit subject.
--
--- Patch [2]: [PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: mfd: mediatek: mt6397: add MT6320 compatible string ---
commit 4f9d7290dc8c6616ef111069a6c3bd9726e97d25
Author: Akari Tsuyukusa <[email protected]>
dt-bindings: mfd: mediatek: mt6397: add MT6320 compatible string
This commit adds the mediatek,mt6320 compatible string to the MT6397 PMIC
device tree binding.
> dt-bindings: mfd: mediatek: mt6397: add MT6320 compatible string
[Severity: Low]
This isn't a bug, but the MFD subsystem guidelines request that the
description following the subsystem prefix be capitalized. Should "add" be
changed to "Add"?
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/mediatek,mt6397.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/mediatek,mt6397.yaml
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/mediatek,mt6397.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/mediatek,mt6397.yaml
> @@ -34,6 +34,7 @@ properties:
> compatible:
> oneOf:
> - enum:
> + - mediatek,mt6320
> - mediatek,mt6323
> - mediatek,mt6331 # "mediatek,mt6331" for PMIC MT6331 and MT6332.
> - mediatek,mt6328
[Severity: Low]
Will adding this top-level compatible string without updating the child
regulator nodes cause schema validation to fail for a complete MT6320 node?
Looking at the properties:regulators section in this file, the compatible
enum only allows mediatek,mt6323-regulator and mediatek,mt6328-regulator.
Does the MT6320 require a corresponding compatible string added to the
regulators sub-node, or a fallback to one of the existing variants?
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/[email protected]?part=2
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.