[PATCH v3 phy-next 14/16] dt-bindings: phy: lynx-10g: initial document

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Wed, Jun 03, 2026 at 04:50:39PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 03, 2026 at 04:38:25PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 03, 2026 at 01:33:50PM +0000, sashiko-bot at kernel.org wrote:
> > > Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
> > > - [Medium] The `if` condition for enforcing the `big-endian` property incorrectly matches the `compatible` string array directly against an `enum`, which will always evaluate to false and cause the requirement to silently fail.
> > > --
> > > 
> > > commit 8bd3982a89722b20a3686e42d4ab3b9f0711ae11
> > > Author: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean at nxp.com>
> > > 
> > > dt-bindings: phy: lynx-10g: initial document
> > > 
> > > This commit adds the schema for the 10G Lynx SerDes used on most QorIQ and
> > > Layerscape SoCs. It defines the valid compatible strings, PHY cell requirements,
> > > and enforces SoC-specific constraints such as lane counts and endianness.
> > > 
> > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/fsl,lynx-10g.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/fsl,lynx-10g.yaml
> > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > index 0000000000000..8cf6027a75b91
> > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/fsl,lynx-10g.yaml
> > > > +  - if:
> > > > +      properties:
> > > > +        compatible:
> > > > +          enum:
> > > > +            - fsl,ls1046a-serdes1
> > > > +            - fsl,ls1046a-serdes2
> > > 
> > > [Severity: Medium]
> > > Does this conditional correctly enforce the big-endian property? 
> > > 
> > > Since the compatible property is a string array in device trees, evaluating it
> > > directly against an enum always returns false. Should this use "contains:" 
> > > with the enum, similar to the preceding if block, so dt_binding_check 
> > > correctly enforces the requirement?
> > 
> > The tests I did suggest that it does enforce the requirement.
> 
> Yeah, sashiko just doesn't understand how this works without "contains".
> "contains" is only actually required for validation purposes if there's
> fallback compatibles and you're trying to get a partial match.

Yeah, I have no clear understanding of the json-schema syntax either, I
just copied from another place where it was clear that the intention was
to have multiple matches on nodes having a single compatible string each.

But maybe it would be good from DT bindings maintainers to teach LLMs
where they get things wrong in this repo?
https://github.com/masoncl/review-prompts/blob/main/kernel/subsystem/dt-bindings.md