Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] dt-bindings: soc: sophgo: add TOP syscon for CV18XX/SG200X series SoC

Longbin Li
2025-10-26T09:47:37Z

On Sat, Oct 25, 2025 at 01:44:00PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 25, 2025 at 10:27:13AM +0800, Longbin Li wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 24, 2025 at 05:46:03PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> >
> > > > ...
> > > > +
> > > > +properties:
> > > > + compatible:
> > > > + oneOf:
> > > > + - items:
> > > > + - const: sophgo,cv1800b-top-syscon
> > > > + - const: syscon
> > > > + - const: simple-mfd
> > > > +
> > > > + reg:
> > > > + maxItems: 1
> > > > +
> > > > + "#address-cells":
> > > > + const: 1
> > > > +
> > > > + "#size-cells":
> > > > + const: 1
> > > > +
> > > > + ranges: true
> > >
> > > Do you actually use ranges?
> > >

Actually, I do not use it.
I added it following Rob's suggestion in
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251015134144.GA3265377-robh@kernel.org/.
Should I drop it or not?

> > > > +patternProperties:
> > > > + "dma-router@[0-9a-f]+$":
> > >
> > > Do these actually appear at variable addresses, or is it always 48 for
> > > the phy and 53 for the dma router?
> > >
> > > > + $ref: /schemas/dma/sophgo,cv1800b-dmamux.yaml#
> > > > + unevaluatedProperties: false
> > > > +
> > > > + "phy@[0-9a-f]+$":
> > > > + $ref: /schemas/phy/sophgo,cv1800b-usb2-phy.yaml#
> > > > + unevaluatedProperties: false
> > > > +
> > > > +required:
> > > > + - compatible
> > > > + - reg
> > > > + - "#address-cells"
> > > > + - "#size-cells"
> > > > +
> > > > +additionalProperties: false
> > > > +
> > > > +examples:
> > > > + - |
> > > > + #include <dt-bindings/clock/sophgo,cv1800.h>
> > > > +
> > > > + syscon@3000000 {
> > > > + compatible = "sophgo,cv1800b-top-syscon", "syscon", "simple-mfd";
> > > > + reg = <0x03000000 0x1000>;
> > > > + #address-cells = <1>;
> > > > + #size-cells = <1>;
> > > > +
> > > > + usbphy: phy@48 {
> > >
> > > Drop the labels off of these two, since they're unused in the example.
> > >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Thanks for the review.
> >
> > There are a couple of different opinions here.
> > Could you please help confirm which approach is preferred here?
> >
> > This is Rob's reply:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251015134144.GA3265377-robh@kernel.org/
>
> I don't think that Rob and I disgree about the example, having child
> nodes is good, having the label on them is what I don't want.
>
> Re: the child node patterns, I was not looking for a return to what Rob
> didn't like, but rather a move to just making them normal properties
> rather than a pattern, if there's only one possible address.

Thanks!
I will drop the lable and move the child nodes to normal properties.