[PATCH net-next v10 05/11] arm64: dts: rockchip: rk3568: add XPCS and fixed-clock nodes

[sashiko-bot at kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Low] arm64: dts: missing required phys and phy-names in xpcs node
- [Low] arm64: dts: invalid status property in ethernet-pcs-mii subnodes
--

commit f7f429813cd82e99b5d810d46e4c1e52b84d1623
Author: Coia Prant <coiaprant at gmail.com>

arm64: dts: rockchip: rk3568: add XPCS and fixed-clock nodes

This commit adds the XPCS device node, its PCS-MII sub-nodes, and fixed-clock
nodes for GMAC reference clocks to the RK3568 SoC device tree.

> The XPCS node requires a reference to the appropriate Naneng Combo PHY
> via the phys property.  dtbs_check only validates required properties
> for enabled nodes, so the SoC dtsi does not provide phys/phy-names:

[Severity: Low]
The commit message states that dtbs_check only validates required properties
for enabled nodes, but is this accurate? 

The dt-schema validates all matching nodes against the
rockchip,rk3568-xpcs.yaml schema, regardless of their status property. Since
the schema defines phys and phy-names as unconditionally required, will this
cause make dtbs_check to emit missing-property warnings for every RK3568
board that does not explicitly provide these properties?

> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3568.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3568.dtsi
> index 3bc653f027f1f..2cea108b31a4e 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3568.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3568.dtsi

[ ... ]

> +	xpcs: ethernet-pcs at fda00000 {
> +		compatible = "rockchip,rk3568-xpcs";
> +		#address-cells = <1>;
> +		#size-cells = <0>;
> +		reg = <0x0 0xfda00000 0x0 0x200000>;
> +		clocks = <&cru PCLK_XPCS>, <&cru CLK_XPCS_EEE>;
> +		clock-names = "csr", "eee";
> +		power-domains = <&power RK3568_PD_PIPE>;
> +		status = "disabled";
> +
> +		xpcs_mii0: ethernet-pcs-mii at 0 {
> +			reg = <0>;
> +			status = "disabled";

[Severity: Low]
Does adding the status property here cause undocumented property warnings
during dtbs_check? 

The rockchip,rk3568-xpcs.yaml schema defines the ethernet-pcs-mii subnodes
using patternProperties with additionalProperties: false, but does not
explicitly include status in its allowed properties, nor does it reference a
core schema that would bring it in.

Since disabling the parent xpcs node is sufficient, is the status property
redundant in these child nodes?

> +		};

[ ... ]

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260922200336.2201212-1-coiaprant@gmail.com?part=5