On Tue, Jun 09, 2026 at 12:40:08PM +0100, Rodrigo Alencar wrote: > On 09/06/26 10:28, [email protected] wrote: > > Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential > > issue(s) to consider: > > - [High] Adding `vdd-supply`, `vlogic-supply`, and unconditionally > > requiring `vref-supply` breaks backward compatibility for existing device > > trees. > > - [Medium] Making `vlogic-supply` unconditionally required forces device > > trees to document a non-existent hardware connection for single-channel > > devices. > > -- > > > > commit 8357cd3efa5f819678f24f0cbf0a39208f4078bc > > Author: Rodrigo Alencar <[email protected]> > > Subject: dt-bindings: iio: dac: ad5696: rework on power supplies > > > > This commit reworks the power supply bindings for the ad5696 DAC series. It > > adds vdd-supply, vlogic-supply, and vref-supply, deprecates vcc-supply, and > > updates the required properties. > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/dac/adi,ad5696.yaml > > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/dac/adi,ad5696.yaml > > > index 2dcc049f30e91..e5fbaec4adf71 100644 > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/dac/adi,ad5696.yaml > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/dac/adi,ad5696.yaml > > > > [ ... ] > > > > > @@ -55,8 +65,21 @@ properties: > > > required: > > > - compatible > > > - reg > > > + - vdd-supply > > > + - vlogic-supply > > > > [Severity: High] > > Does adding vdd-supply and vlogic-supply to the global required list break > > backward compatibility for existing device trees? Older device trees that > > omitted these will now fail dtbs_check. > > Yes, for correctness, it breaks the dtbs_check. In the driver side > we would rely on the dummy/stub regulator in case those are not declared.
Ye I wouldn't be overly worried here. Sashiko has particular difficulty with these kinds of changes. > > > [Severity: Medium] > > Does making vlogic-supply unconditionally required force device trees to > > document a non-existent hardware connection? Single-channel devices in this > > family (such as adi,ad5693, adi,ad5693r, and adi,ad5311r) physically do not > > have a dedicated VLOGIC pin. > > VLOGIC does exist for those parts. However, as mentioned before, for some > tiny packages it is internally connected to VDD: > > - 10-Lead MSOP package for AD5693R/AD5691R exposes the VLOGIC pin > - 8-Lead LFCSP package for AD5693R/AD5692R/AD5691R/AD5693 does NOT expose the > VLOGIC pin > > I think we agreed to make it required and user can just repeat the vdd-supply > value or not have it at all. Driver would rely on the dummy/stub regulator. Yeah, I dunno. I think this is just a judgement call, and maybe worth having a comment in the binding for to explain it. > > > > > > > allOf: > > > + - if: > > > + properties: > > > + compatible: > > > + contains: > > > + anyOf: > > > + - const: adi,ad5693 > > > + - const: adi,ad5694 > > > + - const: adi,ad5696 > > > + then: > > > + required: > > > + - vref-supply > > > > [Severity: High] > > Does unconditionally requiring vref-supply break older device trees that > > correctly utilized the formerly valid vcc-supply? > > > > To preserve DT ABI compatibility, should the schema allow either vcc-supply > > or > > vref-supply to satisfy the reference voltage requirement? > > Same here. For correctness, it breaks DT ABI. > > > -- > > Sashiko AI review ยท > > https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/[email protected]?part=2 > > -- > Kind regards, > > Rodrigo Alencar
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
