Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] dt-bindings: soc: sophgo: add TOP syscon for CV18XX/SG200X series SoC

Conor Dooley <[email protected]>
Newsgroups dev.linux.lists.sophgo,org.infradead.lists.linux-riscv,org.kernel.vger.linux-devicetree,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel
Message-ID <20251025-shakable-jujitsu-3a5e9c8895a5@spud>
On Sat, Oct 25, 2025 at 10:27:13AM +0800, Longbin Li wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2025 at 05:46:03PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> 
> > > ...
> > > +
> > > +properties:
> > > +  compatible:
> > > +    oneOf:
> > > +      - items:
> > > +          - const: sophgo,cv1800b-top-syscon
> > > +          - const: syscon
> > > +          - const: simple-mfd
> > > +
> > > +  reg:
> > > +    maxItems: 1
> > > +
> > > +  "#address-cells":
> > > +    const: 1
> > > +
> > > +  "#size-cells":
> > > +    const: 1
> > > +
> > > +  ranges: true
> > 
> > Do you actually use ranges?
> > 
> > > +patternProperties:
> > > +  "dma-router@[0-9a-f]+$":
> > 
> > Do these actually appear at variable addresses, or is it always 48 for
> > the phy and 53 for the dma router?
> > 
> > > +    $ref: /schemas/dma/sophgo,cv1800b-dmamux.yaml#
> > > +    unevaluatedProperties: false
> > > +
> > > +  "phy@[0-9a-f]+$":
> > > +    $ref: /schemas/phy/sophgo,cv1800b-usb2-phy.yaml#
> > > +    unevaluatedProperties: false
> > > +
> > > +required:
> > > +  - compatible
> > > +  - reg
> > > +  - "#address-cells"
> > > +  - "#size-cells"
> > > +
> > > +additionalProperties: false
> > > +
> > > +examples:
> > > +  - |
> > > +    #include <dt-bindings/clock/sophgo,cv1800.h>
> > > +
> > > +    syscon@3000000 {
> > > +      compatible = "sophgo,cv1800b-top-syscon", "syscon", "simple-mfd";
> > > +      reg = <0x03000000 0x1000>;
> > > +      #address-cells = <1>;
> > > +      #size-cells = <1>;
> > > +
> > > +      usbphy: phy@48 {
> > 
> > Drop the labels off of these two, since they're unused in the example.
> > 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for the review.
> 
> There are a couple of different opinions here.
> Could you please help confirm which approach is preferred here?
> 
> This is Rob's reply:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/

I don't think that Rob and I disgree about the example, having child
nodes is good, having the label on them is what I don't want.

Re: the child node patterns, I was not looking for a return to what Rob
didn't like, but rather a move to just making them normal properties
rather than a pattern, if there's only one possible address.
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 228 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iHUEABYKAB0WIQRh246EGq/8RLhDjO14tDGHoIJi0gUCaPzGCgAKCRB4tDGHoIJi
0hKmAP9wppNOTqUcMNHIzevx1pK2MIBbfFM0ow0FlUnLwre+jAEA+1Y1ihrGIpfc
64g6hgbEVSbSRUo+VAr3/aMAaFlHdQo=
=AyBe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.