Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] dt-bindings: mfd: add NXP MC33978/MC34978 MSDI

[Rob Herring]

On Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 10:10 AM Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Krzysztof and Rob,
>
> On Tue, Mar 03, 2026 at 08:40:55AM -0600, Rob Herring (Arm) wrote:
> > >  .../devicetree/bindings/mfd/nxp,mc33978.yaml  | 114 ++++++++++++++++++
> > >  .../bindings/pinctrl/nxp,mc33978-pinctrl.yaml |  82 +++++++++++++
> > >  2 files changed, 196 insertions(+)
> > >  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/nxp,mc33978.yaml
> > >  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/nxp,mc33978-pinctrl.yaml
> > >
> >
> > My bot found errors running 'make dt_binding_check' on your patch:
> >
> > yamllint warnings/errors:
> >
> > dtschema/dtc warnings/errors:
> > /builds/robherring/dt-review-ci/linux/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/nxp,mc33978.example.dtb: gpio@0 (nxp,mc33978): $nodename:0: 'gpio@0' does not match '^mux-controller(@.*|-([0-9]|[1-9][0-9]+))?$'
> >       from schema $id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/mux/mux-controller.yaml
> >
>
> Folding the mux node into the parent as suggested [1] causes this error.
> Because the parent now has #mux-control-cells, the generic
> mux-controller.yaml forces the node name to be mux-controller. Since
> this chip is primarily a switch/GPIO controller, naming the parent SPI
> node mux-controller@0 is misleading.
>
> What is the preferred way to go here?

I think there was another series dropping the mux-controller node
name. Not sure what happened to it, but that's what we need to do
here.

Rob