On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 12:39:30PM +0300, Eugen Hristev wrote:
> The pattern for the nodename only allows t-phy@... , however, for the case
> when the t-phy has no `reg` and only `ranges` (basically when the t-phy
> is just a parent node), dtc will throw this warning:
>
> Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): /t-phy@1a243000: node has a unit name, but no reg or ranges property
>
> For a node like this:
>
> sata_phy: t-phy@1a243000 {
> ranges;
>
> sata_port: sata-phy@1a243000 {
> reg = <0 0x1a243000 0 0x0100>;
> };
> };
>
> it is normal that the parent node 't-phy' would be without any address, as in:
>
> sata_phy: t-phy {
> ranges;
>
> sata_port: sata-phy@1a243000 {
> reg = <0 0x1a243000 0 0x0100>;
> };
> };
>
> because being just a holder it does not have its own reg.
>
> However the binding does not allow such a name for the t-phy, so with this
> patch, making the `@[0-9a-f]+` part optional, such node is possible.
>
> Signed-off-by: Eugen Hristev <eugen.hristev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
This seems reasonable to me, perhaps the lads will scream.
Acked-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks,
Conor.
> ---
> Changes in v2:
> - none
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/mediatek,tphy.yaml | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/mediatek,tphy.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/mediatek,tphy.yaml
> index 230a17f24966..2bb91542e984 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/mediatek,tphy.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/mediatek,tphy.yaml
> @@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ description: |
>
> properties:
> $nodename:
> - pattern: "^t-phy@[0-9a-f]+$"
> + pattern: "^t-phy(@[0-9a-f]+)?$"
>
> compatible:
> oneOf:
> --
> 2.34.1
>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
