Re: [PATCH v2 02/12] dt-bindings: iio: dac: ad5696: rework on power supplies

[Conor Dooley]

On Tue, Jun 09, 2026 at 12:40:08PM +0100, Rodrigo Alencar wrote:
> On 09/06/26 10:28, sashiko-bot@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to consider:
> > - [High] Adding `vdd-supply`, `vlogic-supply`, and unconditionally requiring `vref-supply` breaks backward compatibility for existing device trees.
> > - [Medium] Making `vlogic-supply` unconditionally required forces device trees to document a non-existent hardware connection for single-channel devices.
> > --
> > 
> > commit 8357cd3efa5f819678f24f0cbf0a39208f4078bc
> > Author: Rodrigo Alencar <rodrigo.alencar@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Subject: dt-bindings: iio: dac: ad5696: rework on power supplies
> > 
> > This commit reworks the power supply bindings for the ad5696 DAC series. It
> > adds vdd-supply, vlogic-supply, and vref-supply, deprecates vcc-supply, and
> > updates the required properties.
> > 
> > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/dac/adi,ad5696.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/dac/adi,ad5696.yaml
> > > index 2dcc049f30e91..e5fbaec4adf71 100644
> > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/dac/adi,ad5696.yaml
> > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/dac/adi,ad5696.yaml
> > 
> > [ ... ]
> > 
> > > @@ -55,8 +65,21 @@ properties:
> > >  required:
> > >    - compatible
> > >    - reg
> > > +  - vdd-supply
> > > +  - vlogic-supply
> > 
> > [Severity: High]
> > Does adding vdd-supply and vlogic-supply to the global required list break
> > backward compatibility for existing device trees? Older device trees that
> > omitted these will now fail dtbs_check.
> 
> Yes, for correctness, it breaks the dtbs_check. In the driver side
> we would rely on the dummy/stub regulator in case those are not declared.

Ye I wouldn't be overly worried here. Sashiko has particular difficulty
with these kinds of changes.

> 
> > [Severity: Medium]
> > Does making vlogic-supply unconditionally required force device trees to
> > document a non-existent hardware connection? Single-channel devices in this
> > family (such as adi,ad5693, adi,ad5693r, and adi,ad5311r) physically do not
> > have a dedicated VLOGIC pin.
> 
> VLOGIC does exist for those parts. However, as mentioned before, for some
> tiny packages it is internally connected to VDD:
> 
> - 10-Lead MSOP package for AD5693R/AD5691R exposes the VLOGIC pin
> - 8-Lead LFCSP package for AD5693R/AD5692R/AD5691R/AD5693 does NOT expose the VLOGIC pin
> 
> I think we agreed to make it required and user can just repeat the vdd-supply
> value or not have it at all. Driver would rely on the dummy/stub regulator.

Yeah, I dunno. I think this is just a judgement call, and maybe worth
having a comment in the binding for to explain it.

>  
> > >  
> > >  allOf:
> > > +  - if:
> > > +      properties:
> > > +        compatible:
> > > +          contains:
> > > +            anyOf:
> > > +              - const: adi,ad5693
> > > +              - const: adi,ad5694
> > > +              - const: adi,ad5696
> > > +    then:
> > > +      required:
> > > +        - vref-supply
> > 
> > [Severity: High]
> > Does unconditionally requiring vref-supply break older device trees that
> > correctly utilized the formerly valid vcc-supply?
> > 
> > To preserve DT ABI compatibility, should the schema allow either vcc-supply or
> > vref-supply to satisfy the reference voltage requirement?
> 
> Same here. For correctness, it breaks DT ABI.
> 
> > -- 
> > Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260609-ad5686-new-features-v2-0-70b423f5c76d@xxxxxxxxxx?part=2
> 
> -- 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Rodrigo Alencar

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature