On 09/08/2022 00:10, Rob Herring wrote: > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the > content is safe > > On Mon, Aug 8, 2022 at 4:10 PM <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 08/08/2022 22:28, Jessica Clarke wrote: >>> Moreover, what is the point of regmap in this >>> case? Its existence suggests the point is for them to *not* be children >>> of the syscon, otherwise you wouldn’t need an explicit phandle, you’d >>> just look at the parent. Moving the nodes whilst keeping the property >>> doesn’t make sense to me. >> >> That's how syscon bindings are constructed, makes it easier to follow >> I suppose if they functions are children of the syscon node. Strictly >> I think they don't need to be under the syscon itself, I think they can >> also go at the top level - they just aren't valid under the /soc node >> as it has been defined as a "simple-bus". >> >> It would appear that the original patch 0e404da007 ("riscv/virt: Add >> syscon reboot and poweroff DT nodes") that added them put them at the >> top level and it was in the refactor that they got moved to the soc bus.* >> Maybe the solution would be to put them back at the top level? > > Perhaps. > > The other option is adding 'simple-mfd' to the 'test' node compatible. > That would work for Linux. Not sure for FreeBSD.
Right, of course I was missing something in my understanding. The probe flow on Linux came back to me on the bike this morning after reading this and I felt like an idiot for missing that in the devicetrees I looked at! @Jess, which does FreeBSD prefer? top level or add the extra compatible? Thanks, Conor.
