Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 7 Mar 2018 21:49:26 +0000 | From | James Hogan <> | Subject | MIPS DT W=1 warnings (was Re: [PATCH v5 2/5] MIPS: mscc: add ocelot dtsi) |
| |
Hi Rob,
On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 10:08:28AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > Please compile with W=1 and fix any issues like this one which is a > unit-address without a reg property. Drop the unit-address.
I was just giving the BMIPS W=1 DT warnings a look, and a few look spurious. I'd value your opinion on their legitimacy (its hard to care about W=1 if spurious or seemingly pedantic warnings are going to be common). e.g.
1) arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm9ejtagprb.dtb: Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): Node /ubus/syscon-reboot@10000068 has a unit name, but no reg property
due to:
periph_cntl: syscon@fff8c000 { compatible = "syscon"; reg = <0xfff8c000 0xc>; native-endian; };
reboot: syscon-reboot@fff8c008 { compatible = "syscon-reboot"; regmap = <&periph_cntl>; offset = <0x8>; mask = <0x1>; };
That doesn't seem to take regmap into account. Would you strictly drop the unit-address in this case, or is there a way the DT compiler can be fixed (i presume offset and mask are binding specific, so the best it could do is probably to allow the unit-address due to the regmap without checking the actual address)?
2) arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm9ejtagprb.dtb: Warning (simple_bus_reg): Node /ubus/syscon-reboot@10000068 missing or empty reg/ranges property
Same code as above. Should syscon-reboot be outside of the simple-bus that both nodes are in, or is it fine there? There's a similar warning from a DTS which has a syscon property instead of regmap.
3) arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm97425svmb.dtb: Warning (simple_bus_reg): Node /rdb@10000000/spi@41c000 simple-bus unit address format error, expected "419920"
qspi: spi@41c000 { #address-cells = <0x1>; #size-cells = <0x0>; compatible = "brcm,spi-bcm-qspi", "brcm,spi-brcmstb-qspi"; clocks = <&upg_clk>; reg = <0x419920 0x4 0x41c200 0x188 0x41c000 0x50>; reg-names = "cs_reg", "hif_mspi", "bspi"; ...
Well 41c000 is one of the reg entries, just not the first. I presume bspi is the "main" one, perhaps that should come first since we have reg-names, but even that could potentially confuse driver code if it didn't find reg resources by name (in this case it does appear to, so perhaps that would fine)?
Thanks James [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |