[PATCH v2 2/5] dt-bindings: phy: motorola,cpcap-usb: add chrg_det interrupt

[sashiko-bot at kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Low] DT Schema validation failure due to mismatched interrupt order in examples.
- [Low] DT Binding ABI Breakage by enforcing a backward-incompatible interrupt order.
--

commit 99e058efdaf5b3537435adf0f22c2c642d7b8007
Author: Ivaylo Dimitrov <ivo.g.dimitrov.75 at gmail.com>

dt-bindings: phy: motorola,cpcap-usb: add chrg_det interrupt

The CPCAP USB PHY driver uses the CPCAP charger detection interrupt
for DCP detection. Update the binding and example DTS to use the
corresponding chrg_det interrupt name.

> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/motorola,cpcap-usb-phy.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/motorola,cpcap-usb-phy.yaml
> index dd345cbd0a0b4..62121a8d8e76c 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/motorola,cpcap-usb-phy.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/motorola,cpcap-usb-phy.yaml
> @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@ properties:
>        - description: sessvld interrupt
>        - description: sessend interrupt
>        - description: se1 interrupt
> +      - description: charger detection interrupt
>        - description: dm interrupt
>        - description: dp interrupt
>  
> @@ -41,6 +42,7 @@ properties:
>        - const: sessvld
>        - const: sessend
>        - const: se1
> +      - const: chrg_det
>        - const: dm
>        - const: dp

[Severity: Low]
Does adding this new interrupt in the middle of the items list break backward
compatibility for existing device trees?

By inserting it at index 7 (before dm and dp) without configuring minItems, the
schema now implicitly requires all 10 items in this strict order.

Existing device trees that only define 9 interrupts will fail validation because
their 7th item is dm instead of chrg_det.

[ ... ]

> @@ -91,10 +93,10 @@ examples:
>          interrupts-extended = <
>              &cpcap 15 0 &cpcap 14 0 &cpcap 28 0 &cpcap 19 0
>              &cpcap 18 0 &cpcap 17 0 &cpcap 16 0 &cpcap 49 0
> -            &cpcap 48 1
> +            &cpcap 48 1 &cpcap 13 0
>          >;
>          interrupt-names = "id_ground", "id_float", "se0conn", "vbusvld",
> -                          "sessvld", "sessend", "se1", "dm", "dp";
> +                          "sessvld", "sessend", "se1", "dm", "dp", "chrg_det";

[Severity: Low]
Will this example pass dt_binding_check validation?

The schema's properties block was updated above to expect chrg_det at index 7,
before dm and dp. However, the example appends chrg_det to the end of the list
at index 9.

YAML lists enforce positional matches, so validation might fail when it compares
the example's dm at index 7 against the newly expected chrg_det.

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260705075809.1793784-1-ivo.g.dimitrov.75@gmail.com?part=2