Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: leds: lacie,ns2-leds: Convert to DT schema

On 16/07/26 11:09 pm, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 01, 2026 at 06:05:52PM +0000,[email protected] wrote:
>> Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
>> - [Low] The schema conversion incorrectly restricts LED child node names to `^led(-[0-9a-z]+)?$`, which breaks `dtbs_check` validation for all existing upstream device trees using this binding.
>> --
>>
>> commit 6c59295f22b17d02a2b26847db54458f820fa4f3
>> Author: Ninad Naik<[email protected]>
>>
>> dt-bindings: leds: lacie,ns2-leds: Convert to DT schema
>>
>> Convert lacie,ns2-leds to DT schema.
>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/lacie,ns2-leds.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/lacie,ns2-leds.yaml
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 0000000000000..679a618906d80
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/lacie,ns2-leds.yaml
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,87 @@
>> [ ... ]
>>> +properties:
>>> +  compatible:
>>> +    const: lacie,ns2-leds
>>> +
>>> +patternProperties:
>>> +  "^led(-[0-9a-z]+)?$":
>> [Severity: Low]
>> Will this restrictive regex cause existing device trees to fail dtbs_check?
>>
>> The old text binding example used a child node named blue-sata, which does
>> not match this pattern. Since additionalProperties is set to false below,
>> nodes in existing device trees that don't start with led will be rejected
>> during validation.
>>
>> Should this regex be relaxed to allow existing node names, or should those
>> device tree files be updated alongside this conversion?
> While yes we prefer what you did, it's perhaps not worth changing these
> old .dts files to match the preference.
>
> Rob

I understand this. Should I relax the regex to allow any pattern so that 
the existing as well

as new DTS files could be properly validated?

Thanks,

Ninad Naik