Re: [PATCH v3 7/9] dt-bindings: arm: stm32: Switch st,stm32mp23/25-syscfg into simple-mfd

From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>
To: Marek Vasut <marex@nabladev.com>
Cc: linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, fabrice.gasnier@foss.st.com,
	Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@foss.st.com>,
	Christian Bruel <christian.bruel@foss.st.com>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@kernel.org>,
	Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com>,
	Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@linaro.org>,
	Pankaj Dev <pankaj.dev@st.com>,
	Rahul Kumar <rahul.kumar05@st.com>, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
	Rosen Penev <rosenp@gmail.com>,
	Thinh Nguyen <Thinh.Nguyen@synopsys.com>,
	Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>,
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org, kernel@dh-electronics.com,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-phy@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 7/9] dt-bindings: arm: stm32: Switch st,stm32mp23/25-syscfg into simple-mfd
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2026 23:35:01 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <3264c2d2-4c53-44c0-8164-d2d83f75c175@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9b197208-dbb4-44dd-b0c0-b4dcaa57c403@nabladev.com>

On 27/08/2026 17:04, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 8/27/26 3:07 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>
>> OTOH2, you have now patchset dependency which is nowwhere explained.
>> Merging constraints are the most important part of cover letter so must
>> be clearly stated. IMO, should be stated also here, because many
>> maintainers do not read cover letters. Or just decouple dependencies
>> with using 'compatibles' pattern (see Qualcomm msm/mdss display
>> bindings).
> I wonder, wouldn't it be better to write a driver which binds to 
> st,stm32mp25-syscfg , handles the SYSCFG clock, and does some 
> of_platform_populate() to bring up the PHYs (DT subnodes) ?
> 
> I think that would resolve the ABI break problem, since we wouldn't need 
> the simple-mfd compatible anymore. And it would also correctly handle 
> the SYSCFG clock.
> 
> What do you think ?

Yes, it is better and more flexible approach. Solves ABI impact.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

-- 
linux-phy mailing list
linux-phy@lists.infradead.org
https://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-phy