Re: [RFC PATCH 06/11] dt-bindings: soc: microchip: document the two simple-mfd syscons on PolarFire SoC

[Conor Dooley]

On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 09:34:11AM -0600, Rob Herring (Arm) wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 15:01:09 +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > There are two syscons on PolarFire SoC that provide various functionality of
> > use to the OS.
> > 
> > The first of these is the "control-scb" region, that contains the "tvs"
> > temperature and voltage sensors and the control/status registers for the
> > system controller's mailbox. The mailbox has a dedicated node, so
> > there's no need for a child node describing it, looking the syscon up by
> > compatible is sufficient.
> > 
> > The second, "mss-top-sysreg", contains clocks, pinctrl, resets, and
> > interrupt controller and more. For this RFC, only the reset controller
> > child is described as that's all that is described by the existing
> > bindings. The clock controller already has a dedicated node, and will
> > retain it as there are other clock regions, so like the mailbox,
> > a compatible-based lookup of the syscon is sufficient to keep the clock
> > driver working as before so no child is needed.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > (I'll split this in two later, it's just easier when I have the same
> > questions about both...)
> > 
> > Are these things entitled to have child nodes for the reset and sensor
> > nodes, or should the properties be in the parent and the OS probe the
> > drivers for the functions? That's something that, despite supposedly
> > being a maintainer, I do not understand the rules (of thumb?) for.
> > 
> > Secondly, is it okay to make the "pragmatic" decision to not have a
> > child clock node and keep routing the clocks via the existing & retained
> > clock node (and therefore not update the various clocks nodes in the
> > consumers)? Doing so would require a lot more hocus pocus with the clock
> > driver than this series does, as the same driver would no longer be
> > suitable for the before/after bindings.
> > ---
> >  .../microchip/microchip,mpfs-control-scb.yaml | 54 +++++++++++++++++++
> >  .../microchip,mpfs-mss-top-sysreg.yaml        | 53 ++++++++++++++++++
> >  2 files changed, 107 insertions(+)
> >  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/microchip/microchip,mpfs-control-scb.yaml
> >  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/microchip/microchip,mpfs-mss-top-sysreg.yaml
> > 
> 
> My bot found errors running 'make dt_binding_check' on your patch:
> 
> yamllint warnings/errors:
> 
> dtschema/dtc warnings/errors:
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/microchip/microchip,mpfs-control-scb.example.dts:21.13-38: Warning (reg_format): /example-0/soc/syscon@37020000:reg: property has invalid length (8 bytes) (#address-cells == 2, #size-cells == 1)
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/microchip/microchip,mpfs-control-scb.example.dtb: Warning (pci_device_reg): Failed prerequisite 'reg_format'
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/microchip/microchip,mpfs-control-scb.example.dtb: Warning (pci_device_bus_num): Failed prerequisite 'reg_format'
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/microchip/microchip,mpfs-control-scb.example.dtb: Warning (simple_bus_reg): Failed prerequisite 'reg_format'
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/microchip/microchip,mpfs-control-scb.example.dtb: Warning (i2c_bus_reg): Failed prerequisite 'reg_format'
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/microchip/microchip,mpfs-control-scb.example.dtb: Warning (spi_bus_reg): Failed prerequisite 'reg_format'
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/microchip/microchip,mpfs-control-scb.example.dts:19.27-26.13: Warning (avoid_default_addr_size): /example-0/soc/syscon@37020000: Relying on default #address-cells value
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/microchip/microchip,mpfs-control-scb.example.dts:19.27-26.13: Warning (avoid_default_addr_size): /example-0/soc/syscon@37020000: Relying on default #size-cells value
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/microchip/microchip,mpfs-control-scb.example.dtb: Warning (unique_unit_address_if_enabled): Failed prerequisite 'avoid_default_addr_size'

Yeah, these are all known. One of the bindings doesn't even have an
example. I know this is automated, but just to point out that my only
objective here is figuring out whether or not child nodes are okay here.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature