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

[Marek Vasut <marex@nabladev.com>]

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,
>>
>>>>>>>>          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 ?
> 
> 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.