Re: [PATCH net-next v10 2/9] dt-bindings: net: lan9645x: add LAN9645X switch bindings

On Tue, 2026-07-14 at 14:43 +0000, [email protected] wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> 
> Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
> - [Medium] DT binding schema strictly prohibits `mdio` bus nodes, breaking the ability to define integrated PHYs.
> --
> 
> --- Patch [2]: [PATCH net-next v10 2/9] dt-bindings: net: lan9645x: add LAN9645X switch bindings ---
> commit d0ca8cd625881ac3b8529fd977bdb0c8a0c3b129
> Author: Jens Emil Schulz Østergaard <[email protected]>
> 
> dt-bindings: net: lan9645x: add LAN9645X switch bindings
> 
> Add bindings for LAN9645X switch. We use a fallback compatible for the
> smallest SKU microchip,lan96455s-switch.
> 
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/microchip,lan96455s-switch.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/microchip,lan96455s-switch.yaml
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000000000..043fb48922b41
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/microchip,lan96455s-switch.yaml
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
> > +required:
> > +  - compatible
> > +  - reg
> > +  - ethernet-ports
> > +
> > +unevaluatedProperties: false
> 
> [Severity: Medium]
> Will this schema reject valid hardware descriptions that include an mdio child
> node for the integrated PHYs?
> 
> Since the schema sets unevaluatedProperties: false without defining or
> referencing an mdio property, any mdio node defined in a device tree will
> be rejected as an illegal property.
> 
> > +
> > +examples:
> > +  - |
> > +    ethernet-switch@4000 {
> > +        compatible = "microchip,lan96459f-switch", "microchip,lan96455s-switch";
> > +        reg = <0x4000 0x244>;
> > +
> > +        ethernet-ports {
> > +            #address-cells = <1>;
> > +            #size-cells = <0>;
> > +
> > +            ethernet-port@0 {
> > +                reg = <0>;
> > +                phy-mode = "gmii";
> > +                phy-handle = <&cuphy0>;
> 
> [Severity: Medium]
> Does the schema allow defining the integrated PHY nodes referenced here?
> 
> The example demonstrates the necessity of phy-handle pointers to integrated
> PHY nodes (such as &cuphy0), yet the schema's constraints make it
> structurally impossible to validly define the MDIO bus for those PHYs.
> 

I think this is a false positive. Any peripherals such as MDIO controllers are
meant to be child nodes of an MFD device, as siblings of this switch node. The
MDIO bus devices will not be subnodes of this switch node, so they are not
meant to be accomodated by this schema.

> --
> Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260713-dsa_lan9645x_switch_driver_base-v10-0-a4886a08fb15@microchip.com?part=2