Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider: - [Low] dt-bindings: missing `type: object` constraints for child nodes --
commit 44544968b5bc5130f1768962ce3f85c8bc12cfad Author: Svyatoslav Ryhel <[email protected]> dt-bindings: mfd: Document Skyworks AAT2870 Document Skyworks AAT2870 LED Backlight Driver and Multiple LDO Lighting Management Unit. > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/skyworks,aat2870.yaml > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/skyworks,aat2870.yaml > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000000000..014678616076f > --- /dev/null > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/skyworks,aat2870.yaml [ ... ] > + vin-supply: > + description: Regulator providing power to the "IN" pin. > + > + backlight: > + $ref: /schemas/leds/backlight/common.yaml# > + unevaluatedProperties: false [Severity: Low] Does this node definition need an explicit type: object? Since this backlight property references /schemas/leds/backlight/common.yaml# which does not define type: object at its root, the dt_binding_check schema validation tool will fail with a type is missing error when checking this new schema. In dt-schema, properties representing child nodes must explicitly declare type: object if it is not inherited from a $ref. [ ... ] > + patternProperties: > + "^(ldo-(a|b|c|d))$": > + $ref: /schemas/regulator/regulator.yaml# > + unevaluatedProperties: false [Severity: Low] Similarly, do these regulator subnodes matching ldo-[a-d] require a type: object constraint? Like the backlight node above, the referenced external schema (/schemas/regulator/regulator.yaml#) does not inherently provide type: object, which will also result in validation failures. -- Sashiko AI review ยท https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/[email protected]?part=1
