Re: [PATCH v3 7/8] dt-bindings: iio: temperature: Add ADT7604 support to adi,ltc2983

[Jonathan Cameron]

On Fri, 22 May 2026 14:42:53 +0300
Liviu Stan <liviu.stan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, 21 May 2026 18:23:07 +0000 sashiko-bot@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
> > Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to consider:
> > - [Low] The new compatible string 'adi,adt7604' is omitted from the existing conditional block that disables '^temp@' nodes, violating subsystem guidelines.
> > - [Low] The schema allows invalid 'adi,sensor-type' values in '^rtd@' and '^thermistor@' nodes for the ADT7604.
> > --
> > 
> > commit fbbcd3bcbfbb106e48a6545868dd2b27a56b39b5
> > Author: Liviu Stan <liviu.stan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > dt-bindings: iio: temperature: Add ADT7604 support to adi,ltc2983
> > 
> > This commit adds support for the ADT7604 to the LTC2983 binding schema. It
> > introduces the adi,adt7604 compatible string and adds two new sensor node
> > types: copper-trace@ and leak-detector@. It also adds conditional checks to
> > restrict unsupported nodes for the ADT7604 device.
> >   
> > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/temperature/adi,ltc2983.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/temperature/adi,ltc2983.yaml
> > > index a22725f7619b7..14cfa28809edd 100644
> > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/temperature/adi,ltc2983.yaml
> > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/temperature/adi,ltc2983.yaml  
> > [ ... ]  
> > > @@ -477,6 +597,22 @@ allOf:
> > >        patternProperties:
> > >          '^temp@': false
> > >  
> > > +  - if:
> > > +      properties:
> > > +        compatible:
> > > +          contains:
> > > +            const: adi,adt7604
> > > +    then:
> > > +      patternProperties:
> > > +        '^thermocouple@': false
> > > +        '^diode@': false
> > > +        '^adc@': false
> > > +        '^temp@': false  
> > 
> > [Severity: Low]
> > Since ADT7604 shares the ^temp@: false constraint with the existing devices,
> > should adi,adt7604 be added to the existing compatible enum block instead of
> > duplicating the ^temp@ restriction in this new conditional?  
> 
> I think keeping all ADT7604 related constraints in one block is more readable.
> For the block above it's different because ltc2984 and ltc2983 share the same
> constraints.

Agreed

> 
> > 
> > [Severity: Low]
> > The commit message mentions that ADT7604 repurposes the custom RTD sensor type
> > (18) and custom thermistor type (27).
> > 
> > However, the schema doesn't restrict adi,sensor-type = <18> inside ^rtd@ nodes
> > or adi,sensor-type = <27> inside ^thermistor@ nodes for the adi,adt7604
> > compatible.
> > 
> > Should these restrictions be added to this block to prevent invalid device
> > tree configurations from passing validation?
> >   
> 
> This makes sense, we could restrict sensor type 18 and 27 for the ADT7604, even
> though the driver's supported_sensors bitmask already rejects them.
> 
> I could add something like:
> 
> - if:
>     properties:
>       compatible:
>         contains:
>           const: adi,adt7604
>   then:
>     patternProperties:
>       '^thermocouple@': false
>       '^diode@': false
>       '^adc@': false
>       '^temp@': false
>       '^rtd@':
>         properties:
>           adi,sensor-type:
>             not:
>               const: 18
>       '^thermistor@':
>         properties:
>           adi,sensor-type:
>             not:
>               const: 27
> 
> What do you think?
> 
Seems like a nice to have.

> Thanks,
> Liviu
>