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

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 20/10/2025 10:50, Ryan Chen wrote:
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk at kernel.org>
>> Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 4:47 PM
>> To: Ryan Chen <ryan_chen at aspeedtech.com>; Lee Jones <lee at kernel.org>;
>> Rob Herring <robh at kernel.org>; Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt at kernel.org>;
>> Conor Dooley <conor+dt at kernel.org>; Joel Stanley <joel at jms.id.au>; Andrew
>> Jeffery <andrew at codeconstruct.com.au>; devicetree at vger.kernel.org;
>> linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org; linux-aspeed at lists.ozlabs.org;
>> linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: mfd: aspeed,ast2x00-scu: allow #size-cells
>> range
>>
>> 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 at 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.
> 
> Understood, thanks for the clarification.
> I'll move this discussion to the AST2700 DTS patchset and ensure that the
> binding and DTS changes are reviewed together there.
> 

The problem is that you refer to some very old patchset which is long
gone from our mailboxes. Sending a necessary change month after the DTS
patch is not making the discussion easy.

Please always think how your patchset is supposed to be reviewed.

Best regards,
Krzysztof