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 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 ?

Thank you for your help with this !