Re: [PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: rtc: Add Raspberry Pi 5 RTC binding
From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
Date: 2026-09-09 14:23:55
Also in:
linux-devicetree
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 3 potential issue(s) to consider: - [Medium] The binding introduces a custom, un-prefixed `trickle-charge-microvolt` property instead of using the standard `trickle-voltage-millivolt` property, and fails to reference the common RTC schema. - [Low] The YAML filename does not match the primary compatible string it defines. - [Low] Spelling errors in the commit message. -- commit 425dd29b0a89a2c3ccab5825c325cf7042fb52e4 Author: Sander Speetjens [off-list ref] dt-bindings: rtc: Add Raspberry Pi 5 RTC binding This commit adds device tree bindings for the Raspberry Pi 5 RTC, which is located in a custom DA9091 PMIC and accessed through the firmware mailbox interface.
Add device tree bindings for the Raspberry Pi 5 RTC. Located in a custom DA9091 PMIC and accesed trough the firmware mailbox.
[Severity: Low] This isn't a bug, but there are spelling mistakes in the commit message. "accesed trough" should be "accessed through".
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/raspberrypi,rtc-rpi.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/raspberrypi,rtc-rpi.yaml new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000..93430048355a8 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/raspberrypi,rtc-rpi.yaml@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
[ ... ]
+properties: + compatible: + const: raspberrypi,rpi-rtc
[Severity: Low] Does this compatible string intentionally differ from the filename? The YAML filename (raspberrypi,rtc-rpi.yaml) does not match the defined primary compatible string (raspberrypi,rpi-rtc), which goes against standard binding naming conventions.
+ + firmware: + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle + description: + Phandle to the Raspberry Pi firmware device. + + trickle-charge-microvolt: + description: + RTC backup battery trickle-charge voltage. A value of 0 disables + trickle charging.
[Severity: Medium] Should this property use the standard trickle-voltage-millivolt property name instead? If a custom property is strictly required here, shouldn't it have a vendor prefix? [ ... ]
+required: + - compatible + - firmware + +additionalProperties: false
[Severity: Medium] Should this binding reference the common RTC schema? Setting additionalProperties: false without including an $ref to rtc.yaml# will strictly reject generic RTC properties. Any device tree developer attempting to use standard RTC properties (like wakeup-source) on this node will encounter schema validation failures. -- Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260909141300.1368790-1-sander.speetjens@gmail.com?part=1