[PATCH 17/20] dt-bindings: mfd: Add Synaptics SL261x global block binding

[sashiko-bot at kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Low] dt-bindings: mfd: hardcoded child node names reject standard generic names
--

commit 0676aaa06a44b6b171bf0c3b295a14f6820c22d4
Author: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang at kernel.org>

dt-bindings: mfd: Add Synaptics SL261x global block binding

This commit introduces the device tree binding for Synaptics SL261x global
and control register blocks. It defines constraints for the AVIO global,
CPU wrapper, chip control, and MCU global blocks, exposing clocks, pinctrl,
and reset functions.

> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/syna,sl261x-gbl.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/syna,sl261x-gbl.yaml
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000000..3e5842169c4a3
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/syna,sl261x-gbl.yaml
[ ... ]
> +properties:
[ ... ]
> +  reg:
> +    maxItems: 1
> +
> +  clock:
> +    type: object
> +    additionalProperties: true
> +
> +  pin-controller:
> +    type: object
> +    additionalProperties: true
> +
> +  reset:
> +    type: object
> +    additionalProperties: true

[Severity: Low]
Does enforcing these exact node names prevent devicetree authors from using
standard generic node names like clock-controller or reset-controller?

[ ... ]
> +        reset:
> +          properties:
> +            compatible:
> +              const: syna,sl261x-system-reset
> +
> +additionalProperties: false

[Severity: Low]
Could this strict validation reject devicetrees using standard generic names,
since only clock, pin-controller, and reset are explicitly allowed in the
properties block?

Using patternProperties (e.g., "^clock-controller(@.*)?$": type: object)
would allow standard devicetree naming conventions.

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260929061417.20733-1-jszhang@kernel.org?part=17