[PATCH v8 01/29] dt-bindings: phy: rockchip-usbdp: add improved ports scheme

[sashiko-bot at kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Medium] Missing mutual exclusion between `port` and `ports` in device tree schema
--

commit bef609fa8f96018c59387544e50ed1e5818faa7a
Author: Sebastian Reichel <sebastian.reichel at collabora.com>

dt-bindings: phy: rockchip-usbdp: add improved ports scheme

This commit introduces a documented port scheme for the Rockchip USBDP PHY,
modeled after the Qualcomm QMP USB4-USB3-DP PHY controller binding. It adds
a top-level ports node with specific endpoints for USB, DisplayPort, and
SBU connections to properly support USB-C DP AltMode.

> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/phy-rockchip-usbdp.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/phy-rockchip-usbdp.yaml
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/phy-rockchip-usbdp.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/phy-rockchip-usbdp.yaml
> @@ -114,6 +114,29 @@ properties:
>        A port node to link the PHY to a TypeC controller for the purpose of
>        handling orientation switching.
>  
> +  ports:
> +    $ref: /schemas/graph.yaml#/properties/ports

[Severity: Medium]
Should there be a mutual exclusion constraint between the newly added
ports property and the pre-existing port property?

If a device tree node defines both a top-level port and a ports node
simultaneously, it currently passes schema validation. However, standard
OF graph parsing functions like of_graph_get_next_endpoint() will silently
ignore the top-level port if a ports node is present, creating a shadowing
conflict.

Could this be prevented by adding a oneOf mutual exclusion constraint?

[ ... ]

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260626-rockchip-usbdp-cleanup-v8-0-47f682987895@collabora.com?part=1