From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com (Thomas Petazzoni) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 14:38:35 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v3 09/13] ARM: dts: armada-375: Fixup soc DT warning In-Reply-To: <877f81b013.fsf@free-electrons.com> References: <20161117230830.31047-1-gregory.clement@free-electrons.com> <20161117230830.31047-10-gregory.clement@free-electrons.com> <20161118095455.00bfe007@free-electrons.com> <87d1htb1qr.fsf@free-electrons.com> <20161118101248.784eff2b@free-electrons.com> <877f81b013.fsf@free-electrons.com> Message-ID: <20161118143835.660cf275@free-electrons.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hello, On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 10:38:32 +0100, Gregory CLEMENT wrote: > >> > unit address? It doesn't have a 'reg' property if I remember > >> > correctly. > >> > >> But it has a range property. > > > > And? There are multiple ranges, and you randomly took the first one for > > the unit address of the soc node? > > Not randomly I followed the same rules that for the regs mentioned in > the ePAPR paragraph 2.2.1.1: > > "The unit-address should match the first address specified in the reg > property of the node." But it doesn't say anything about the ranges property. Isn't the dtc warning in fact over-zealous? The ePAPR says that the unit address should be the first address of the reg property, but doesn't say anything about the ranges property. What I dislike is that there absolutely nothing that forces the ranges to be written in this order. In another board, it can be written in a completely different order, which means that the unit address would be different, which is really silly. I continue to believe this rule doesn't make sense, and the soc node shouldn't have a unit address. Maybe Rob or Mark (who is not in Cc, for some reason?) should say a word about this? Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 09/13] ARM: dts: armada-375: Fixup soc DT warning Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 14:38:35 +0100 Message-ID: <20161118143835.660cf275@free-electrons.com> References: <20161117230830.31047-1-gregory.clement@free-electrons.com> <20161117230830.31047-10-gregory.clement@free-electrons.com> <20161118095455.00bfe007@free-electrons.com> <87d1htb1qr.fsf@free-electrons.com> <20161118101248.784eff2b@free-electrons.com> <877f81b013.fsf@free-electrons.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <877f81b013.fsf-wi1+55ScJUtKEb57/3fJTNBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org> Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Gregory CLEMENT Cc: Jason Cooper , Andrew Lunn , Sebastian Hesselbarth , linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, Rob Herring , devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Hello, On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 10:38:32 +0100, Gregory CLEMENT wrote: > >> > unit address? It doesn't have a 'reg' property if I remember > >> > correctly. > >> > >> But it has a range property. > > > > And? There are multiple ranges, and you randomly took the first one for > > the unit address of the soc node? > > Not randomly I followed the same rules that for the regs mentioned in > the ePAPR paragraph 2.2.1.1: > > "The unit-address should match the first address specified in the reg > property of the node." But it doesn't say anything about the ranges property. Isn't the dtc warning in fact over-zealous? The ePAPR says that the unit address should be the first address of the reg property, but doesn't say anything about the ranges property. What I dislike is that there absolutely nothing that forces the ranges to be written in this order. In another board, it can be written in a completely different order, which means that the unit address would be different, which is really silly. I continue to believe this rule doesn't make sense, and the soc node shouldn't have a unit address. Maybe Rob or Mark (who is not in Cc, for some reason?) should say a word about this? Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html