Re: [RFC PATCH 06/11] dt-bindings: soc: microchip: document the two simple-mfd syscons on PolarFire SoC

["Rob Herring (Arm)" <robh@kernel.org>]

On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 15:01:09 +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
> 
> There are two syscons on PolarFire SoC that provide various functionality of
> use to the OS.
> 
> The first of these is the "control-scb" region, that contains the "tvs"
> temperature and voltage sensors and the control/status registers for the
> system controller's mailbox. The mailbox has a dedicated node, so
> there's no need for a child node describing it, looking the syscon up by
> compatible is sufficient.
> 
> The second, "mss-top-sysreg", contains clocks, pinctrl, resets, and
> interrupt controller and more. For this RFC, only the reset controller
> child is described as that's all that is described by the existing
> bindings. The clock controller already has a dedicated node, and will
> retain it as there are other clock regions, so like the mailbox,
> a compatible-based lookup of the syscon is sufficient to keep the clock
> driver working as before so no child is needed.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
> ---
> (I'll split this in two later, it's just easier when I have the same
> questions about both...)
> 
> Are these things entitled to have child nodes for the reset and sensor
> nodes, or should the properties be in the parent and the OS probe the
> drivers for the functions? That's something that, despite supposedly
> being a maintainer, I do not understand the rules (of thumb?) for.
> 
> Secondly, is it okay to make the "pragmatic" decision to not have a
> child clock node and keep routing the clocks via the existing & retained
> clock node (and therefore not update the various clocks nodes in the
> consumers)? Doing so would require a lot more hocus pocus with the clock
> driver than this series does, as the same driver would no longer be
> suitable for the before/after bindings.
> ---
>  .../microchip/microchip,mpfs-control-scb.yaml | 54 +++++++++++++++++++
>  .../microchip,mpfs-mss-top-sysreg.yaml        | 53 ++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 107 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/microchip/microchip,mpfs-control-scb.yaml
>  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/microchip/microchip,mpfs-mss-top-sysreg.yaml
> 

My bot found errors running 'make dt_binding_check' on your patch:

yamllint warnings/errors:

dtschema/dtc warnings/errors:
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/microchip/microchip,mpfs-control-scb.example.dts:21.13-38: Warning (reg_format): /example-0/soc/syscon@37020000:reg: property has invalid length (8 bytes) (#address-cells == 2, #size-cells == 1)
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/microchip/microchip,mpfs-control-scb.example.dtb: Warning (pci_device_reg): Failed prerequisite 'reg_format'
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/microchip/microchip,mpfs-control-scb.example.dtb: Warning (pci_device_bus_num): Failed prerequisite 'reg_format'
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/microchip/microchip,mpfs-control-scb.example.dtb: Warning (simple_bus_reg): Failed prerequisite 'reg_format'
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/microchip/microchip,mpfs-control-scb.example.dtb: Warning (i2c_bus_reg): Failed prerequisite 'reg_format'
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/microchip/microchip,mpfs-control-scb.example.dtb: Warning (spi_bus_reg): Failed prerequisite 'reg_format'
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/microchip/microchip,mpfs-control-scb.example.dts:19.27-26.13: Warning (avoid_default_addr_size): /example-0/soc/syscon@37020000: Relying on default #address-cells value
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/microchip/microchip,mpfs-control-scb.example.dts:19.27-26.13: Warning (avoid_default_addr_size): /example-0/soc/syscon@37020000: Relying on default #size-cells value
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/microchip/microchip,mpfs-control-scb.example.dtb: Warning (unique_unit_address_if_enabled): Failed prerequisite 'avoid_default_addr_size'

doc reference errors (make refcheckdocs):

See https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/devicetree-bindings/patch/20240815-pending-sacrifice-f2569ed756fe@spud

The base for the series is generally the latest rc1. A different dependency
should be noted in *this* patch.

If you already ran 'make dt_binding_check' and didn't see the above
error(s), then make sure 'yamllint' is installed and dt-schema is up to
date:

pip3 install dtschema --upgrade

Please check and re-submit after running the above command yourself. Note
that DT_SCHEMA_FILES can be set to your schema file to speed up checking
your schema. However, it must be unset to test all examples with your schema.