Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: mfd: aspeed,ast2x00-scu: allow #size-cells range

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On 20/10/2025 10:18, Ryan Chen wrote:
>> Subject: RE: [PATCH] dt-bindings: mfd: aspeed,ast2x00-scu: allow #size-cells
>> range
>>
>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: mfd: aspeed,ast2x00-scu: allow
>>> #size-cells range
>>>
>>> On 20/10/2025 08:39, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 20/10/2025 08:31, Ryan Chen wrote:
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: mfd: aspeed,ast2x00-scu: allow
>>>>>> #size-cells range
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 20/10/2025 04:07, Ryan Chen wrote:
>>>>>>> The #size-cells property in the Aspeed SCU binding is currently
>>>>>>> fixed to a constant value of 1. However, newer SoCs (ex. AST2700)
>>>>>>> may require two size cells to describe certain subregions or
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "may"? So there is no issue yet?
>>>>>
>>>>> while I submit ast2700 platform,
>>>>
>>>> So there is no warning currently? Then don't mention. You cannot use
>>>> argument of possible future warning as there is a warning needing to
>>>> be fixed. This makes no sense. Like you add bug in your patchset and
>>>> then send *different* patch claiming you are fixing a bug.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> These warnings appear when validating the AST2700 EVB device tree.
>>>>> The SCU nodes on AST2700 have subdevices (such as clock and reset
>>>>> controllers) that require two address cells, which is not allowed
>>>>> by the current `const: 1` constraint in the schema.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is the related report:
>>>>>   https://lkml.org/lkml/2025/9/2/1165
>>>>
>>>> This must be together, so we can review entire picture, not pieces
>>>> by pieces. Organize your work correctly, so reviewing will be easy.
>>>>
>>> Anyway, I managed to find your original work and there is no need for
>>> this patch at all. You don't have 64-bit sizes there.
>> Thanks, I will keep #size-cells = <1>; for my next step.
> 
> Hello Krzysztof,
> Sory bothers you again.
> After checking the AST2700 platform memory configuration, it supports up to
> 8GB of DRAM. This requires using `#size-cells = <2>` for the memory node, for
> example:
> 
> 	memory@400000000 {
> 		device_type = "memory";
> 		reg = <0x4 0x00000000 0x0 0x40000000>;
> 	};
> 
> Given this, what would be the proper way to proceed?


I did not comment on memory node. Maybe I looked at wrong node, not
sure, that's why this should not be discussed here but in that DTS
patchset really.

Best regards,
Krzysztof