[PATCH] dt-bindings: mfd: Add MT6397 sound DAI cells

Document the one sound DAI cell provided by MT6397 PMIC nodes.

Assisted-by: LLM
Signed-off-by: Rob Herring (Arm) <robh@kernel.org>
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/mediatek,mt6397.yaml | 3 +++
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/mediatek,mt6397.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/mediatek,mt6397.yaml
index 3cbc0dc12c31..e2caa049a60b 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/mediatek,mt6397.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/mediatek,mt6397.yaml

@@ -57,6 +57,9 @@ properties:
   "#interrupt-cells":
     const: 2
 
+  "#sound-dai-cells":
+    const: 1
+
   rtc:
     type: object
     $ref: /schemas/rtc/rtc.yaml#

-- 
2.53.0

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Medium] dt-bindings: mfd: missing conditional enforcement and example for #sound-dai-cells
--

commit 81069b8500a138169e7ffa4f54dfcaa00429702d
Author: Rob Herring (Arm) [off-list ref]

dt-bindings: mfd: Add MT6397 sound DAI cells

This commit documents the sound DAI cell provided by MT6397 PMIC nodes.

[Severity: Medium]
Does adding this at the top-level properties block bypass conditional
enforcement for specific variants?

By placing "#sound-dai-cells" at the top level without an allOf: if-then
conditional block restricted to "mediatek,mt6397", the schema fails to enforce
it as a required property for the MT6397 PMIC, and incorrectly allows it for
other PMIC variants. 

Should it be added to the required list for MT6397 and included in the MT6397
example block, as per DT subsystem guidelines for new provider capabilities?

   rtc:
     type: object
     $ref: /schemas/rtc/rtc.yaml#

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260921232649.3132592-1-robh@kernel.org?part=1

On 9/22/26 01:26, Rob Herring (Arm) wrote:

Document the one sound DAI cell provided by MT6397 PMIC nodes.

Assisted-by: LLM
Signed-off-by: Rob Herring (Arm) <robh@kernel.org>

Reviewed-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>

On Mon, Sep 21, 2026 at 11:36:45PM +0000, sashiko-bot@kernel.org wrote:

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Medium] dt-bindings: mfd: missing conditional enforcement and example for #sound-dai-cells
--

commit 81069b8500a138169e7ffa4f54dfcaa00429702d
Author: Rob Herring (Arm) [off-list ref]

dt-bindings: mfd: Add MT6397 sound DAI cells

This commit documents the sound DAI cell provided by MT6397 PMIC nodes.

quoted

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/mediatek,mt6397.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/mediatek,mt6397.yaml
index 3cbc0dc12c319..e2caa049a60ba 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/mediatek,mt6397.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/mediatek,mt6397.yaml

@@ -57,6 +57,9 @@ properties:
   "#interrupt-cells":
     const: 2
 
+  "#sound-dai-cells":
+    const: 1
+

[Severity: Medium]
Does adding this at the top-level properties block bypass conditional
enforcement for specific variants?

By placing "#sound-dai-cells" at the top level without an allOf: if-then
conditional block restricted to "mediatek,mt6397", the schema fails to enforce
it as a required property for the MT6397 PMIC, and incorrectly allows it for
other PMIC variants. 

No clue about the capabilities of each variant, but I would guess if one 
has audio codec, then they all do.

Should it be added to the required list for MT6397 and included in the MT6397
example block, as per DT subsystem guidelines for new provider capabilities?

Perfectly fine to use this h/w and not use the audio functionality. 
Also, new required properties can be an ABI break.

Rob