Re: [RFD]: Solving qcom unique unit address warnings

[Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>]

On 08-02-22, 14:05, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 10:38:37PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > The problem comes with all these nodes having same unit addresses. This
> > is adding to ~2K warning for unique_unit_address upstream.
> 
> This is with W=1, right? 

Yes

>  
> > So to solve this we thought of creating a qup se node and then query the
> > protocol supported from the firmware on boot and create a child
> > auxillary_device. The problem with that approach is another warning
> > "node name for SPI buses should be 'spi'"! So that would not help
> > 
> > Now, I cant think of any better idea here, except maybe move these to
> > respective board dts and perhaps keep them commented here for
> > documentation.
> > 
> > Do we have any better idea to solve this problem?
> 
> There is another dtc warning option called 
> unique_unit_address_if_enabled which we could enable under W=1 instead 
> of unique_unit_address. Even that option has too many warnings to enable 
> by default.

Bjorn pointed me to your proposal https://www.irccloud.com/pastebin/OnYqVn6p/

with this change I do get a better stats for warnings which we can focus
on reducing :)

Before:
   6483 unique_unit_address\n\
   1108 simple_bus_reg\n\
    764 avoid_unnecessary_addr_size\n\
    712 unit_address_vs_reg\n\
    120 graph_child_address\n\
     32 unique_unit_address_if_enabled

After:
    277 simple_bus_reg\n\
    191 avoid_unnecessary_addr_size\n\
    178 unit_address_vs_reg\n\
     32 unique_unit_address_if_enabled\n\
     30 graph_child_address

So, it would be helpful for now to merge this.

Thanks
-- 
~Vinod