Re: [PATCH 08/10] dt-bindings: mfd: rohm,bd71828-pmic: Use generic power-controller schema

[Matti Vaittinen]

Hi Peng,

On 04/08/2026 17:16, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote:
> From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@xxxxxxx>
>
> Switch the binding to use the generic power-controller schema instead by
> referencing power-controller.yaml and removing the local
> `system-power-controller` property definition.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@xxxxxxx>
> ---
>   Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/rohm,bd71828-pmic.yaml | 7 ++++---
>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/rohm,bd71828-pmic.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/rohm,bd71828-pmic.yaml
> index 09e7d68e92bf..9818102e02c7 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/rohm,bd71828-pmic.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/rohm,bd71828-pmic.yaml
> @@ -15,6 +15,9 @@ description: |
>     single-cell linear charger. Also included is a Coulomb counter, a real-time
>     clock (RTC), and a 32.768 kHz clock gate.
>   
> +allOf:
> +  - $ref: /schemas/power/power-controller.yaml#
> +
>   properties:
>     compatible:
>       oneOf:
> @@ -79,8 +82,6 @@ properties:
>         used to mark the pins which should not be configured for GPIO. Please see
>         the ../gpio/gpio.txt for more information.
>   
> -  system-power-controller: true
> -
>   required:
>     - compatible
>     - reg
> @@ -91,7 +92,7 @@ required:
>     - gpio-controller
>     - "#gpio-cells"
>   
> -additionalProperties: false
> +unevaluatedProperties: false



If I am not mistaken, this allows all bindings from referenced common 
binding files, whether or not they are declared in this binding? If so, 
then this is probably not aligned with what I am hoping to do with the 
ROHM PMIC bindings [1] [2].

I hope to collect the commonly used ROHM PMIC bindings in one common 
file, and reference it from those PMIC files, which use some of those 
common properties. I would like to collect all of the commonly used ROHM 
MFD bindings in the same file because scattering them around in tiny 
files feels like a bad idea to me. This means that not all of the PMICs 
referencing this file, use all of the bindings from that file.

Hence I would prefer not to just allow everything from the common file - 
but to limit allowed properties to those that are explicitly mentioned 
for the specific PMIC. For example, my proposed change [1] moves:

rohm,clkout-open-drain, rohm,pin-clkout, rohm,pin-fault_b, 
"^rohm,pin-dvs[0-1]$" and "^rohm,pin-exten([0-1])?$" to 
rohm,pmic-pins.yaml. Only the rohm,clkout-open-drain should be supported 
allowed with the bd71828. Keeping:
additionalProperties: false

disallows the properties which aren't explicitly mentioned for the 
bd71828, while making it possible to keep the description, type and 
other common stuff in the common rohm,pmic-pins.yaml.



Also, keeping the single explicit line:

	system-power-controller: true

to denote this specific PMIC can act as a system power controller feels 
(to me) more descriptive than "hiding" it in

$ref: /schemas/power/power-controller.yaml#

- which is also a single line.

As a summary - would it work if you added the reference (for 
description), but also kept the explicit system-power-controller: true 
and also the additionalProperties: false?


[1] 
https://lore.kernel.org/all/838486b443af9188410d8b802a818dc0af20ea9d.1785838585.git.mazziesaccount@xxxxxxxxx/
[2] 
https://lore.kernel.org/all/d419dcf8776f7ea88e4a66b9a0f0087f11e6622c.1785838585.git.mazziesaccount@xxxxxxxxx/

Yours,
	-- Matti


>   examples:
>     - |


--
Matti Vaittinen
Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors
Oulu Finland

~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~