[PATCH 2/5] dt-bindings: soc: canaan: Add top syscon for Canaan K230 SoC

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 30/12/2025 14:14, Jiayu Du wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2025 at 08:39:19AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 30, 2025 at 10:37:21AM +0800, Jiayu Du wrote:
>>> The Canaan K230 SoC top system controller provides register access
>>> to configure related modules. It includes a USB2 PHY and eMMC/SDIO PHY.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jiayu Du <jiayu.riscv at isrc.iscas.ac.cn>
> ...
>>> +
>>> +  "#size-cells":
>>> +    const: 1
>>> +
>>> +  usb-phy at 70:
>>> +    $ref: schemas/phy/canaan,k230-usb-phy.yaml#
>>
>> So that's why you did not have example there? But where did you explain
>> merging strategy/constraints/dependencies? How maintainers can now they
>> can apply this or not?
> 
> Sorry, I will update in v2.
> 
>>
>>
>>> +    unevaluatedProperties: false
>>> +
>>> +  usb-phy at 90:
>>> +    $ref: schemas/phy/canaan,k230-usb-phy.yaml#
>>> +    unevaluatedProperties: false
>>
>> Anyway, these are not really real children. Defining child per phy,
>> where each such phy is just few registers, is way too granular. Instead
>> define one phy with phy-cells=2.

Just a note: phy-cells=1, I made mistake before.

>>
>> You also MUST make this device - hisys - binding complete. If you do
>> not, then my review is: fold the children here, because you do not have
>> any other resources for the parent.
> 
> This hisys memory area not only includes the usbphy registers,
> but also contains the registers of sd/mmc phy. Therefore, the
> hisys node is necessary and cannot be folded.

Can be. There is absolutely nothing stopping it.

Anyway, define all nodes.

> 
> 
> If what I said above is accepted by you, do I still need to
> merge the two usb phy nodes by defining one phy with phy-cells=2?

You should read your datasheet, not exactly rely on me guessing. In
current form of the binding, you must fold the child into the parent.

Best regards,
Krzysztof