Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: stm32: Document st,stm32mp23/25-syscfg subnodes and cells
From: Marek Vasut
Date: Tue Sep 01 2026 - 07:58:26 EST
On 8/31/26 9:56 PM, Conor Dooley wrote:
On Mon, Aug 31, 2026 at 07:38:21PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
On 8/31/26 7:13 PM, Conor Dooley wrote:
Hello Conor,
The PHYs are part of the hardware and are (going to be) described in the SoCThe subnodes of this syscfg node have reg property , see [PATCH v4 0/4]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?
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
DT, so I would argue they should be described as required ?
Yeah, and there's almost certainly no chance of them being required
being problematic is there, since they don't impact existing code, but
have a new (or at least a previously unused on this platform) driver.
I fixed that in V5, which I already sent yesterday.
Thank you for your help with this topic.