| Message ID | 20200526215528.16417-4-Sergey.Semin@baikalelectronics.ru (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | i2c: designeware: Add Baikal-T1 System I2C support | expand |
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 1:00 AM Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@baikalelectronics.ru> wrote: > > dtc currently doesn't support I2C_OWN_SLAVE_ADDRESS flag set in the > i2c "reg" property. If it is the compiler will print a warning: Shouldn't be dtc whatever tools fixed? > Warning (i2c_bus_reg): /example-2/i2c@1120000/eeprom@64: I2C bus unit address format error, expected "40000064" > Warning (i2c_bus_reg): /example-2/i2c@1120000/eeprom@64:reg: I2C address must be less than 10-bits, got "0x40000064" > > In order to silence dtc up let's discard the flag from the DW I2C DT > binding example for now. Just revert this commit when dtc is fixed. Doesn't sound like a good idea. If user happens in between of these ping-pong change, how they will know this subtle issue?
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 12:30:04PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 1:00 AM Serge Semin > <Sergey.Semin@baikalelectronics.ru> wrote: > > > > dtc currently doesn't support I2C_OWN_SLAVE_ADDRESS flag set in the > > i2c "reg" property. If it is the compiler will print a warning: > > Shouldn't be dtc whatever tools fixed? See the first patch in the series. > > > Warning (i2c_bus_reg): /example-2/i2c@1120000/eeprom@64: I2C bus unit address format error, expected "40000064" > > Warning (i2c_bus_reg): /example-2/i2c@1120000/eeprom@64:reg: I2C address must be less than 10-bits, got "0x40000064" > > > > In order to silence dtc up let's discard the flag from the DW I2C DT > > binding example for now. Just revert this commit when dtc is fixed. > > Doesn't sound like a good idea. If user happens in between of these > ping-pong change, how they will know this subtle issue? As I see it, there are three ways we can follow. 1) Apply the patch and revert when dtc is fixed. 2) Apply the patch, but add a comment above the property, that we need to get the 0x40000064 address back when dtc is dixed. 3) Leave this ugly warning be until dtc is fixed. In a comment to v2 Rob mentioned a solution like 1). Personally I am ok with either, though I'd like to see a Rob's final comment about this. -Sergey > > -- > With Best Regards, > Andy Shevchenko
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 03:07:16PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote: > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 12:30:04PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 1:00 AM Serge Semin > > <Sergey.Semin@baikalelectronics.ru> wrote: > > > > > > dtc currently doesn't support I2C_OWN_SLAVE_ADDRESS flag set in the > > > i2c "reg" property. If it is the compiler will print a warning: > > > > Shouldn't be dtc whatever tools fixed? > > See the first patch in the series. I can't by the reason that I have no such. I also answered to cover letter about it. > > > Warning (i2c_bus_reg): /example-2/i2c@1120000/eeprom@64: I2C bus unit address format error, expected "40000064" > > > Warning (i2c_bus_reg): /example-2/i2c@1120000/eeprom@64:reg: I2C address must be less than 10-bits, got "0x40000064" > > > > > > In order to silence dtc up let's discard the flag from the DW I2C DT > > > binding example for now. Just revert this commit when dtc is fixed. > > > > Doesn't sound like a good idea. If user happens in between of these > > ping-pong change, how they will know this subtle issue? > > As I see it, there are three ways we can follow. > 1) Apply the patch and revert when dtc is fixed. > 2) Apply the patch, but add a comment above the property, that we need > to get the 0x40000064 address back when dtc is dixed. > 3) Leave this ugly warning be until dtc is fixed. > > In a comment to v2 Rob mentioned a solution like 1). Personally I am ok with > either, though I'd like to see a Rob's final comment about this. Yes, let's follow what Rob proposes.
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/snps,designware-i2c.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/snps,designware-i2c.yaml index 4bd430b2b41d..101d78e8f19d 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/snps,designware-i2c.yaml +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/snps,designware-i2c.yaml @@ -137,7 +137,7 @@ examples: eeprom@64 { compatible = "linux,slave-24c02"; - reg = <0x40000064>; + reg = <0x64>; }; }; - |
dtc currently doesn't support I2C_OWN_SLAVE_ADDRESS flag set in the i2c "reg" property. If it is the compiler will print a warning: Warning (i2c_bus_reg): /example-2/i2c@1120000/eeprom@64: I2C bus unit address format error, expected "40000064" Warning (i2c_bus_reg): /example-2/i2c@1120000/eeprom@64:reg: I2C address must be less than 10-bits, got "0x40000064" In order to silence dtc up let's discard the flag from the DW I2C DT binding example for now. Just revert this commit when dtc is fixed. Signed-off-by: Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@baikalelectronics.ru> Cc: Alexey Malahov <Alexey.Malahov@baikalelectronics.ru> Cc: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de> Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Cc: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> Cc: linux-mips@vger.kernel.org --- Changelog v3: - This is a new patch created as a result of the Rob request to remove the EEPROM-slave bit setting in the DT binndings example until the dtc is fixed. --- Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/snps,designware-i2c.yaml | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)