Re: [PATCH 2/5] dt-bindings: soc: canaan: Add top syscon for Canaan K230 SoC

From: Jiayu Du <jiayu.riscv@isrc.iscas.ac.cn>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>
Cc: conor@kernel.org, vkoul@kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
	pjw@kernel.org, palmer@dabbelt.com, aou@eecs.berkeley.edu,
	alex@ghiti.fr, neil.armstrong@linaro.org, krzk+dt@kernel.org,
	linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-phy@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-usb@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] dt-bindings: soc: canaan: Add top syscon for Canaan K230 SoC
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2025 21:14:28 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <aVPQNIhyfR/Da/gk@duge-virtual-machine> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20251230-jumping-visionary-coyote-c0be31@quoll>

On Tue, Dec 30, 2025 at 08:39:19AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2025 at 10:37:21AM +0800, Jiayu Du wrote:
> > The Canaan K230 SoC top system controller provides register access
> > to configure related modules. It includes a USB2 PHY and eMMC/SDIO PHY.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jiayu Du <jiayu.riscv@isrc.iscas.ac.cn>
...
> > +
> > +  "#size-cells":
> > +    const: 1
> > +
> > +  usb-phy@70:
> > +    $ref: schemas/phy/canaan,k230-usb-phy.yaml#
> 
> So that's why you did not have example there? But where did you explain
> merging strategy/constraints/dependencies? How maintainers can now they
> can apply this or not?

Sorry, I will update in v2.

> 
> 
> > +    unevaluatedProperties: false
> > +
> > +  usb-phy@90:
> > +    $ref: schemas/phy/canaan,k230-usb-phy.yaml#
> > +    unevaluatedProperties: false
> 
> Anyway, these are not really real children. Defining child per phy,
> where each such phy is just few registers, is way too granular. Instead
> define one phy with phy-cells=2.
> 
> You also MUST make this device - hisys - binding complete. If you do
> not, then my review is: fold the children here, because you do not have
> any other resources for the parent.

This hisys memory area not only includes the usbphy registers,
but also contains the registers of sd/mmc phy. Therefore, the
hisys node is necessary and cannot be folded.

If what I said above is accepted by you, do I still need to
merge the two usb phy nodes by defining one phy with phy-cells=2?

> 
> > +
> > +required:
> > +  - compatible
> > +  - reg
> > +
> > +additionalProperties: false
> > +
> > +examples:
> > +  - |
> > +    hi_sys_config: syscon@91585000 {
> > +        compatible = "canaan,k230-hisys-cfg", "syscon", "simple-mfd";
> > +        reg = <0x91585000 0x400>;
> > +        #address-cells = <1>;
> > +        #size-cells = <1>;
> > +
> > +        usbphy0: usb-phy@70 {
> > +            compatible = "canaan,k230-usb-phy";
> > +            reg = <0x70 0x1C>, <0xb0 0x8>;
> > +            clocks = <&sysclk K230_HS_USB0_AHB_GATE>;
> 
> You never bothered to test your code. Community is not a testing
> service. It's your job to TEST IT before sending.

Sorry, I've realized this now. I'll test it.

Best regards,
jiayu

>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
> 

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