[PATCH V1 2/3] dt-bindings: phy: qcom,sc8280xp-qmp-ufs-phy: Document the Hawi UFS controller

[sashiko-bot at kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Medium] The commit title specifies the wrong subsystem and filename relative to the actual diff.
- [Medium] The new compatible string 'qcom,hawi-ufshc' is omitted from the `if-then` conditional block that enforces the MCQ register range constraints.
--

commit 1742ce0580b168eb19f1dc60a097e13ccbf8098d
Author: Palash Kambar <palash.kambar at oss.qualcomm.com>

dt-bindings: phy: qcom,sc8280xp-qmp-ufs-phy: Document the Hawi UFS controller
    
Document the UFS Controller on the Hawi Platform.

> dt-bindings: phy: qcom,sc8280xp-qmp-ufs-phy: Document the Hawi UFS controller

This isn't a bug, but the commit title specifies the wrong subsystem and
filename. It claims to modify the PHY binding qcom,sc8280xp-qmp-ufs-phy,
but the patch actually modifies the UFS host controller binding
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/qcom,sm8650-ufshc.yaml.

> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/qcom,sm8650-ufshc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/qcom,sm8650-ufshc.yaml
> index f28641c6e68fe..3de00affa4c64 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/qcom,sm8650-ufshc.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/qcom,sm8650-ufshc.yaml
[ ... ]
> @@ -27,6 +28,7 @@ properties:
>      items:
>        - enum:
>            - qcom,eliza-ufshc
> +          - qcom,hawi-ufshc
>            - qcom,kaanapali-ufshc
>            - qcom,sm8650-ufshc
>            - qcom,sm8750-ufshc

Does this code omit qcom,hawi-ufshc from the conditional block further down in
the file that enforces the MCQ register range constraints?

Looking at the allOf block in this file:

allOf:
  - $ref: qcom,ufs-common.yaml
  - if:
      properties:
        compatible:
          contains:
            enum:
              - qcom,eliza-ufshc
    then:
      properties:
        reg:
          minItems: 2
        reg-names:
          minItems: 2

If the Hawi platform shares the same hardware constraints and requires the MCQ
registers, could this regression allow incomplete device trees missing the MCQ
registers to silently pass schema validation by being omitted from this block?

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260518165346.1732548-1-palash.kambar@oss.qualcomm.com?part=2