Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: riscv: Add Sspesa and Ssplcofi extensions
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.linux-devicetree |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider: - [Low] The `ssplcofi` extension is missing a dependency on `sscofpmf` in its validation rules. -- --- Patch [1]: [RFC PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: riscv: Add Sspesa and Ssplcofi extensions --- commit d9c857c632fdf5807bbc999144379f6067037960 Author: Mayuresh Chitale <[email protected]> dt-bindings: riscv: Add Sspesa and Ssplcofi extensions Document the RISC-V Performance Event Sampling extensions Sspesa and Ssplcofi in the ISA extensions binding. This adds descriptions for both extensions and a dependency rule requiring Sspesa when Ssplcofi is present. > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/extensions.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/extensions.yaml > index 5ffc40d599c02..f316b93754ff7 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/extensions.yaml > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/extensions.yaml [ ... ] > @@ -934,6 +946,13 @@ properties: > const: smnpm > - contains: > const: ssnpm > + # Ssplcofi depends on Sspesa > + - if: > + contains: > + const: ssplcofi > + then: > + contains: > + const: sspesa [Severity: Low] Should this validation block also enforce a dependency on the base sscofpmf extension? Without requiring sscofpmf, an invalid device tree configuration declaring ssplcofi without the base extension could silently pass dtbs_check. > # Za64rs and Ziccrse depend on Zalrsc or A > - if: > contains: -- Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/[email protected]?part=1