Re: [PATCH 00/10] dt-bindings: mfd: Use generic power-controller schema

[Rob Herring]

On Tue, Aug 04, 2026 at 10:16:35PM +0800, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote:
> The generic power-controller.yaml schema has been added to dt-schema[1],
> providing a common definition for the `system-power-controller` boolean
> property. Convert MFD bindings that locally define this property to
> instead reference the shared schema.
> 
> The common change across all patches is:
>  - Add a $ref to /schemas/power/power-controller.yaml#
>  - Remove the local `system-power-controller` property definition
>  - Switch from additionalProperties to unevaluatedProperties
> 
> This is a pick of patches 2-11 from [2], rebased to linux-next/master,
> no changes. Patch 1 (the generic power-controller.yaml schema itself)
> is dropped since it has already been picked up by dt-schema.
> 
> [1] https://github.com/devicetree-org/dt-schema/pull/187
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/177523251875.1559844.9690289848283345069.b4-ty@b4/
> 
> Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> Peng Fan (10):
>       dt-bindings: mfd: ene-kb[3]930: Use generic power-controller schema
>       dt-bindings: mfd: ti,tps65910: Use generic power-controller schema
>       dt-bindings: mfd: rockchip,rk8x: Use generic power-controller schema
>       dt-bindings: mfd: ricoh,rn5t618: Use generic power-controller schema
>       dt-bindings: mfd: netronix,ntxec: Use generic power-controller schema
>       dt-bindings: mfd: ti,twl: Use generic power-controller schema
>       dt-bindings: mfd: ti,tps6594: Use generic power-controller schema
>       dt-bindings: mfd: rohm,bd71828-pmic: Use generic power-controller schema
>       dt-bindings: mfd: fsl,mc13xxx: Use generic power-controller schema
>       dt-bindings: mfd: samsung,s2mpg10-pmic: Use generic power-controller schema

Can we hold off on this until at least the next cycle. This change 
effectively bumps the minimum version of dtschema. While 
power-controller.yaml is added to dtschema, it is not yet in a released 
version. I'm not all that sure these changes are much improvement given 
it is a single boolean.

Rob