Re: [RFC PATCH v4 5/6] arm64: dts: rockchip: rk3576: add NPU (RKNN) nodes

Hi Jiaxing,

Following on from my note on 4/6, since a v5 is coming anyway: rknn_core_0
as written here does not validate against the binding 1/6 installs. 1/6
adds the compatible and the conditional sram-supply, so every other
constraint in rockchip,rk3588-rknn-core.yaml still describes RK3588 only.

I put your node through dt-validate (dtschema 2026.6) against the binding
with 1/6 applied, macros resolved to plain numbers and everything else
left as you wrote it:

  npu@27700000 (rockchip,rk3576-rknn-core): clocks: [...6 entries...] is too long
  npu@27700000 (rockchip,rk3576-rknn-core): clock-names: ['aclk', 'hclk',
      'npu', 'pclk', 'aclk_cbuf', 'hclk_cbuf'] is too long
  npu@27700000 (rockchip,rk3576-rknn-core): power-domains: [[2, 7], [2, 8]] is too long
  npu@27700000 (rockchip,rk3576-rknn-core): resets: [[1, 20]] is too short
  npu@27700000 (rockchip,rk3576-rknn-core): reset-names: ['srst_a'] is too short

The last two are the ones easy to miss: the binding writes only
"resets: maxItems: 2", and dtschema fills in minItems from maxItems, so a
single reset is a hard failure rather than a permitted subset.

The v4 changelog says the reg entries were cut to the three the binding
defines after running dtbs_check, so I suspect that run predates the CBUF
clocks and the second power domain going in.

The fix is the same allOf shape you already used for sram-supply. This is
the diff I tested, on top of 1/6:

--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/npu/rockchip,rk3588-rknn-core.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/npu/rockchip,rk3588-rknn-core.yaml
@@
   clocks:
-    maxItems: 4
+    minItems: 4
+    maxItems: 6

   clock-names:
+    minItems: 4
     items:
       - const: aclk
       - const: hclk
       - const: npu
       - const: pclk
+      - const: aclk_cbuf
+      - const: hclk_cbuf
@@
   power-domains:
-    maxItems: 1
+    minItems: 1
+    maxItems: 2

   resets:
+    minItems: 1
     maxItems: 2

   reset-names:
+    minItems: 1
     items:
       - const: srst_a
       - const: srst_h
@@ allOf:
+  - if:
+      properties:
+        compatible:
+          contains:
+            const: rockchip,rk3576-rknn-core
+    then:
+      properties:
+        clocks:
+          minItems: 6
+        clock-names:
+          minItems: 6
+        power-domains:
+          minItems: 2
+        resets:
+          minItems: 1
+          maxItems: 1
+        reset-names:
+          maxItems: 1
+    else:
+      properties:
+        clocks:
+          maxItems: 4
+        clock-names:
+          maxItems: 4
+        power-domains:
+          maxItems: 1
+        resets:
+          minItems: 2
+        reset-names:
+          minItems: 2

With that, your node validates clean, and the RK3588 example in the
binding still passes, so nothing loosens for the existing SoC - the else
branch pins it back to exactly what it has today. Take it as a starting
point rather than a finished patch; the DT maintainers may well want the
per-SoC clock list spelled out differently.

Separately, and this one spans 3/6 and 5/6: the resets you add to the
power-domain@ nodes have no binding at all. Same test, against
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/rockchip,power-controller.yaml:

  power-controller (rockchip,rk3576-power-controller): power-domain@7:
      Unevaluated properties are not allowed ('resets' was unexpected)

$defs/pd-node there defines reg, clocks, domain-supply, pm_qos and
#power-domain-cells, and every nesting level is unevaluatedProperties:
false. So 3/6 teaches the driver to read a property the schema does not
admit; that patch needs a binding change of its own, before or alongside
it.

For what it is worth I did check the DOMAIN_M_O_R_G to DOMAIN_M_O_R_G_W
rename in 2/6 against mainline, and you are right that DOMAIN_RK3576 is
its only user, so nothing else moves.

None of this touches RK3588, so it does not change what I said about the
tag on 4/6 - just worth folding into the same v5 rather than finding it
in a v6.

Thanks,
Igor