Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 8 Mar 2016 09:13:35 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] scripts/dtc: Update to upstream version 53bf130b1cdd | From | Geert Uytterhoeven <> |
| |
Hi Rob,
On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 9:00 AM, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 5:27 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote: >>> Sync to upstream dtc commit 53bf130b1cdd ("libfdt: simplify >>> fdt_node_check_compatible()"). This adds the following commits from >>> upstream: >>> >>> 53bf130 libfdt: simplify fdt_node_check_compatible() >>> c9d9121 Warn on node name unit-address presence/absence mismatch >>> 2e53f9d Catch unsigned 32bit overflow when parsing flattened device tree offsets >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> >>> --- >>> As usual, this is just an automated copy of upstream dtc into the kernel >>> tree. The changeset is small enough that I have left it here. >>> >>> The main reason for this sync is to pick-up the new unit-address >>> warnings. >> >> I gave this a try. Obviously it finds many abuses that should be fixed. >> >> However, I'm wondering about the following, where the unit-address is just >> used to distinguish between multiple instances: >> >> Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): Node /cache-controller@0 has a unit >> name, but no reg property >> compatible = "cache"; > > Just add a reg property. The values should probably match the MPIDR in > some way (e.g. 0 and 100).
it's not "just" adding a reg property. It's also introducing a "cache" subnode with "#address-cells = <1>" and "#size-cells = <0>", and perhaps adding code to make the subnode work. Or moving them under the cpu node, which is actually what the example in ePAPR shows.
>> Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): Node /regulator@1 has a unit name, >> but no reg property >> compatible = "regulator-fixed" > > Regulators are oddball in that the node names are generally supposed > to be the regulator name not generic.
OK.
>> Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): Node /i2c@2 has a unit name, but no >> reg property >> compatible = "i2c-gpio" > > You all should have all the on-chip devices under a simple-bus, then > you would not have this namespace collision here. Still you could have
Fair enough.
> 2 i2c-gpio devices. We can add reg in those cases.
Indeed. And it's not "just" adding a reg property. More "#address-cells = <1>" and "#size-cells = <0>" glue needed here, too. And an update of Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-gpio.txt
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
-- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
| |