The st,stmpe-pwm binding is already covered by the MFD schema in
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/st,stmpe.yaml. However, the
PWM subnode was missing a 'required' properties block. This allowed
Device Tree nodes to pass validation even if the 'compatible'
string was omitted. This omission could lead to probe failures
at runtime.

Fix the schema by adding the missing 'required' block and
remove the obsolete and redundant text binding file.

Signed-off-by: Manish Baing <manishbaing2789@gmail.com>
---
Changes in v3:
- Added 'required' properties to the pwm subnode in st,stmpe.yaml
  to close a validation gap identified by the Sashiko.
- Updated commit message and description to reflect MFD subsystem changes.

Changes in v2:
 - Droppped the TXT file instead of converting to YAML, as the
   functionality is already covered by st,stmpe.yaml.
   
 .../devicetree/bindings/mfd/st,stmpe.yaml      |  4 ++++
 .../devicetree/bindings/pwm/st,stmpe-pwm.txt   | 18 ------------------
 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
 delete mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/st,stmpe-pwm.txt

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/st,stmpe.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/st,stmpe.yaml
index df43878fbe18..4bb05d544901 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/st,stmpe.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/st,stmpe.yaml
@@ -127,6 +127,10 @@ properties:
       "#pwm-cells":
         const: 2
 
+    required:
+      - compatible
+      - "#pwm-cells"
+
   touchscreen:
     type: object
     $ref: /schemas/input/touchscreen/touchscreen.yaml#
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/st,stmpe-pwm.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/st,stmpe-pwm.txt
deleted file mode 100644
index f401316e0248..000000000000
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/st,stmpe-pwm.txt
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,18 +0,0 @@
-== ST STMPE PWM controller ==
-
-This is a PWM block embedded in the ST Microelectronics STMPE
-(ST Multi-Purpose Expander) chips. The PWM is registered as a
-subdevices of the STMPE MFD device.
-
-Required properties:
-- compatible: should be:
-  - "st,stmpe-pwm"
-- #pwm-cells: should be 2. See pwm.yaml in this directory for a description of
-  the cells format.
-
-Example:
-
-pwm0: pwm {
-	compatible = "st,stmpe-pwm";
-	#pwm-cells = <2>;
-};
-- 
2.43.0

Hello,

On Sat, May 09, 2026 at 07:39:28PM +0000, Manish Baing wrote:
> The st,stmpe-pwm binding is already covered by the MFD schema in
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/st,stmpe.yaml. However, the
> PWM subnode was missing a 'required' properties block. This allowed
> Device Tree nodes to pass validation even if the 'compatible'
> string was omitted. This omission could lead to probe failures
> at runtime.
> 
> Fix the schema by adding the missing 'required' block and
> remove the obsolete and redundant text binding file.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Manish Baing <manishbaing2789@gmail.com>
> ---
> Changes in v3:
> - Added 'required' properties to the pwm subnode in st,stmpe.yaml
>   to close a validation gap identified by the Sashiko.
> - Updated commit message and description to reflect MFD subsystem changes.
> 
> Changes in v2:
>  - Droppped the TXT file instead of converting to YAML, as the
>    functionality is already covered by st,stmpe.yaml.
>    
>  .../devicetree/bindings/mfd/st,stmpe.yaml      |  4 ++++
>  .../devicetree/bindings/pwm/st,stmpe-pwm.txt   | 18 ------------------

If the patch was split into two, each touching just one of the files,
there would be no need for merge coordination. Also logically it's two
patches. Would you mind splitting?

Best regards
Uwe

Hi Uwe,
> If the patch was split into two, each touching just one of the files,
> there would be no need for merge coordination. Also logically it's two
> patches. Would you mind splitting?

That makes perfect sense. I will split this into a two-patch series
(one for the MFD YAML fix and one for the PWM TXT deletion) and submit
it shortly as v4.
Thanks for the feedback!

Thanks and Regards,
Manish


On Sun, May 17, 2026 at 8:35 PM Uwe Kleine-König <ukleinek@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Sat, May 09, 2026 at 07:39:28PM +0000, Manish Baing wrote:
> > The st,stmpe-pwm binding is already covered by the MFD schema in
> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/st,stmpe.yaml. However, the
> > PWM subnode was missing a 'required' properties block. This allowed
> > Device Tree nodes to pass validation even if the 'compatible'
> > string was omitted. This omission could lead to probe failures
> > at runtime.
> >
> > Fix the schema by adding the missing 'required' block and
> > remove the obsolete and redundant text binding file.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Manish Baing <manishbaing2789@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > Changes in v3:
> > - Added 'required' properties to the pwm subnode in st,stmpe.yaml
> >   to close a validation gap identified by the Sashiko.
> > - Updated commit message and description to reflect MFD subsystem changes.
> >
> > Changes in v2:
> >  - Droppped the TXT file instead of converting to YAML, as the
> >    functionality is already covered by st,stmpe.yaml.
> >
> >  .../devicetree/bindings/mfd/st,stmpe.yaml      |  4 ++++
> >  .../devicetree/bindings/pwm/st,stmpe-pwm.txt   | 18 ------------------
>
> If the patch was split into two, each touching just one of the files,
> there would be no need for merge coordination. Also logically it's two
> patches. Would you mind splitting?
>
> Best regards
> Uwe

On Sat, May 09, 2026 at 07:39:28PM +0000, Manish Baing wrote:
> The st,stmpe-pwm binding is already covered by the MFD schema in
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/st,stmpe.yaml. However, the
> PWM subnode was missing a 'required' properties block. This allowed
> Device Tree nodes to pass validation even if the 'compatible'
> string was omitted. This omission could lead to probe failures
> at runtime.
> 
> Fix the schema by adding the missing 'required' block and
> remove the obsolete and redundant text binding file.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Manish Baing <manishbaing2789@gmail.com>

Reviewed-by: Uwe Kleine-König <ukleinek@kernel.org>

Lee: If you want to apply that patch, that's fine for me (take my

Acked-by: Uwe Kleine-König <ukleinek@kernel.org>

for that). If I should take it, I'm happily taking your's :-)

Best regards
Uwe

Acked-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
pw-bot: not-applicable