Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: stm32: Document st,stm32mp23/25-syscfg subnodes and cells

[Marek Vasut]

On 8/31/26 7:13 PM, Conor Dooley wrote:

Hello Conor,

> > > > > >         then:
> > > > > >           required:
> > > > > >             - "#clock-cells"
> > > > > > +        - "#address-cells"
> > > > > > +        - "#size-cells"
> > > > >
> > > > > else, false? But I'm also not sure what the benefit is of requiring
> > > > > addr/size cells when the child node is not?
> > > > The subnodes of this syscfg node have reg property , see [PATCH v4 0/4]
> > > > arm64: dts: st: Add STM32MP2 USB support .
> > >
> > > Right, but I was questioning why the properties describing the reg
> > > property in children is required when the children (and thus the reg
> > > property in them) were not made required.
> >
> > Do you mean this patternProperties should be made required in here ?
> >
> > "
> > +patternProperties:
> > +  "^phy@[0-9a-f]+$":
> > "
> >
> > Could you please give me a hint how to do that ? git grep gives me nothing.
>
> I mean, if the phys aren't going to be required I would not make the
> cells properties required. I seem to recall a warning that dtbs_check
> can emit when there are size/addr cells properties in a node where there
> are no children, which is why I questioned this in the first place.
>
> Otherwise, if the phys are to be made required (no idea if they should
> be), I can only recall this being done with the non-pattern variant. IOW
> required:
>    - phy@0
>    - phy@1
The PHYs are part of the hardware and are (going to be) described in the 
SoC DT, so I would argue they should be described as required ?

Thank you for your help with this !