| Message ID | 1484069912-6534-2-git-send-email-javier@osg.samsung.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested |
| Headers | show |
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 02:38:30PM -0300, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > This patch fixes the following DTC warning about a mismatch > between a device node reg property and its unit name: > > Node /soc has a reg or ranges property, but no unit name > > Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com> > --- > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/exynos7.dtsi | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/exynos7.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/exynos7.dtsi > index 80aa60e38237..0d2fedc6ac2f 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/exynos7.dtsi > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/exynos7.dtsi > @@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ > method = "smc"; > }; > > - soc: soc { > + soc: soc@0 { This looks unnatural, like a fix just to silence the DTC. Mostly de do not enumerate soc node, although there are few exceptions. I would prefer ignore the warning... however I am happy to hear other opinions. Best regards, Krzysztof > compatible = "simple-bus"; > #address-cells = <1>; > #size-cells = <1>; > -- > 2.7.4 > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hello Krzysztof, On 01/10/2017 03:47 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 02:38:30PM -0300, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: >> This patch fixes the following DTC warning about a mismatch >> between a device node reg property and its unit name: >> >> Node /soc has a reg or ranges property, but no unit name >> >> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com> >> --- >> >> arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/exynos7.dtsi | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/exynos7.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/exynos7.dtsi >> index 80aa60e38237..0d2fedc6ac2f 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/exynos7.dtsi >> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/exynos7.dtsi >> @@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ >> method = "smc"; >> }; >> >> - soc: soc { >> + soc: soc@0 { > > This looks unnatural, like a fix just to silence the DTC. Mostly de do > not enumerate soc node, although there are few exceptions. > Yes, but OTOH arm32 Exynos SoCs just have an empty "ranges" property in their soc device node (parent and child address space is the same, no translation) so DTC doesn't complain about the unit address in those. But others SoCs DTSI with a non-empty ranges property have an unit name in their soc nodes, i.e for arm64 and arm32: arch/arm64/boot/dts/marvell/berlin4ct.dtsi arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi > I would prefer ignore the warning... however I am happy to hear other opinions. > If is wrong/unnatural to have addresses for soc nodes then I think DTC should be patched to ignore these (like it will be the case for the OPP nodes AFAIU). > Best regards, > Krzysztof > Best regards,
Hello Rob, On 01/10/2017 04:55 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > Hello Krzysztof, > > On 01/10/2017 03:47 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 02:38:30PM -0300, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: >>> This patch fixes the following DTC warning about a mismatch >>> between a device node reg property and its unit name: >>> >>> Node /soc has a reg or ranges property, but no unit name >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com> >>> --- >>> >>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/exynos7.dtsi | 2 +- >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/exynos7.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/exynos7.dtsi >>> index 80aa60e38237..0d2fedc6ac2f 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/exynos7.dtsi >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/exynos7.dtsi >>> @@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ >>> method = "smc"; >>> }; >>> >>> - soc: soc { >>> + soc: soc@0 { >> >> This looks unnatural, like a fix just to silence the DTC. Mostly de do >> not enumerate soc node, although there are few exceptions. >> > > Yes, but OTOH arm32 Exynos SoCs just have an empty "ranges" property in their > soc device node (parent and child address space is the same, no translation) > so DTC doesn't complain about the unit address in those. > > But others SoCs DTSI with a non-empty ranges property have an unit name in > their soc nodes, i.e for arm64 and arm32: > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/marvell/berlin4ct.dtsi > > arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi > >> I would prefer ignore the warning... however I am happy to hear other opinions. >> > > If is wrong/unnatural to have addresses for soc nodes then I think DTC should > be patched to ignore these (like it will be the case for the OPP nodes AFAIU). > Any comments about this? >> Best regards, >> Krzysztof >> > > Best regards, > Best regards,
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/exynos7.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/exynos7.dtsi index 80aa60e38237..0d2fedc6ac2f 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/exynos7.dtsi +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/exynos7.dtsi @@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ method = "smc"; }; - soc: soc { + soc: soc@0 { compatible = "simple-bus"; #address-cells = <1>; #size-cells = <1>;
This patch fixes the following DTC warning about a mismatch between a device node reg property and its unit name: Node /soc has a reg or ranges property, but no unit name Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com> --- arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/exynos7.dtsi | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)