Thread (9 messages) 9 messages, 2 authors, 4d ago

Re: [PATCH v6 1/4] dt-bindings: leds: nxp,pca963x: fix reg maximum for pca9635

From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
Date: 2026-07-15 13:51:56
Also in: linux-leds

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Medium] The commit message claims to tighten the node name regex from `[0-9a-f]+` to `[0-9a-f]` to match the single-digit hardware limit. However, this change was only applied to the top-level `patternProperties`. The corresponding regexes inside the `allOf` conditional blocks for older chip generations were neglected and still allow multiple hex digits.
--
--- Patch [1]: [PATCH v6 1/4] dt-bindings: leds: nxp,pca963x: fix reg maximum for pca9635 ---
commit a500d493e0680c38dffc3b668e4fe9888ec4d0bd
Author: Loic Poulain [off-list ref]
Subject: dt-bindings: leds: nxp,pca963x: fix reg maximum for pca9635

This commit increases the maximum reg value to 15 in the top-level led node
to support 16 channels on the pca9635. It refactors the allOf conditionals
to give pca9634 its own block and changes the top-level regex constraint to
match a single hexadecimal digit.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/nxp,pca963x.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/nxp,pca963x.yaml
index 938d0e48fe51b..4fda602912f7a 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/nxp,pca963x.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/nxp,pca963x.yaml
[ ... ]
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -88,7 +88,13 @@ allOf:
           properties:
             reg:
               maximum: 3
-    else:
+  - if:
+      properties:
+        compatible:
+          contains:
+            enum:
+              - nxp,pca9634
+    then:
       patternProperties:
         "^led@[0-9a-f]+$":
[Severity: Medium]
The commit message states the regex is tightened to single-digit [0-9a-f],
but is it intentional that the patternProperties inside the allOf blocks for
older generations still use the multiple-digit [0-9a-f]+ pattern?

While the top-level constraint handles the validation correctly, retaining
the '+' in the nested conditional blocks for pca9634 (and the pca9632 and
pca9633 block just above this hunk) leaves the schema internally
inconsistent with the stated intent.
           properties:
             reg:
-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260715-monza-leds-v6-0-d1724bb7fe3d@oss.qualcomm.com?part=1
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help