Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Tue, 23 Apr 2024 11:39:26 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: rockchip: fix nodename warning on wolfvision-pf5-display | From | Michael Riesch <> |
| |
Hi Heiko,
First of all, thanks a lot for doing this!
On 4/23/24 10:29, Heiko Stuebner wrote: > The dtbs check throws a warning about node naming with the recently > added pf5-display-overlay: > rockchip/rk3568-wolfvision-pf5-display.dtsi:113.6-121.3: Warning (graph_port): /fragment@4/__overlay__: graph port node name should be 'port' > > This comes from the overlay just referencing the vp2-port-node via > its phandle and then adding an endpoint beneath it. > > While this is possible something to handle inside the dtbs check, > carrying around the warning is not pretty, so change the description > to go around it.
What is the rationale behind that check? Describing a port in a SoC dtsi or board dts and using the reference in an overlay is quite convenient and above all concise.
Cc: device tree list > Starting from the vop_out phandle and then referencing the port > via its generic port@2 nodename will satisfy the port<->endpoint > naming dependency while keeping the same structure once the overlay > is applied. > > Reported-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org> > Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de> > --- > .../rockchip/rk3568-wolfvision-pf5-display.dtsi | 14 ++++++++------ > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3568-wolfvision-pf5-display.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3568-wolfvision-pf5-display.dtsi > index b22bb543ecbb..18c807c39e56 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3568-wolfvision-pf5-display.dtsi > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3568-wolfvision-pf5-display.dtsi > @@ -110,12 +110,14 @@ &pwm10 { > status = "okay"; > }; > > -&vp2 { > - #address-cells = <1>; > - #size-cells = <0>; > +&vop_out { > + port@2 { > + #address-cells = <1>; > + #size-cells = <0>; > > - vp2_out_rgb: endpoint@ROCKCHIP_VOP2_EP_RGB0 { > - reg = <ROCKCHIP_VOP2_EP_RGB0>; > - remote-endpoint = <&panel_in_vp2>; > + vp2_out_rgb: endpoint@ROCKCHIP_VOP2_EP_RGB0 { > + reg = <ROCKCHIP_VOP2_EP_RGB0>; > + remote-endpoint = <&panel_in_vp2>; > + }; > }; > };
With this patch applied the DTC warning "Warning (graph_port): /fragment@4/__overlay__: graph port node name should be 'port'" vanishes, but a different DTC warning "Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): /fragment@4/__overlay__/port@2: node has a unit name, but no reg or ranges property" appears. Can you reproduce this?
I tried to fix that by adding the reg property, but then DTC complained about "Warning (graph_port): /fragment@9/__overlay__/ports/port@0: graph node '#size-cells' is -1, must be 0"
Then, I added the #size-cells property to avoid this. However, DTC complained about this property not being necessary as there is only one port. I stopped at this point.
I would say the real question is how this hardware should look like in the device tree (overlay). Then, the compiler and/or build scripts can be adjusted to tolerate this.
Thanks and best regards, Michael
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |