Re: [PATCH v7 4/7] arm64: dts: qcom: ipq9574: Reorder reg and reg-names

From: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@oss.qualcomm.com>
To: Varadarajan Narayanan <quic_varada@quicinc.com>,
	bhelgaas@google.com, lpieralisi@kernel.org, kw@linux.com,
	manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org, robh@kernel.org,
	krzk+dt@kernel.org, conor+dt@kernel.org, vkoul@kernel.org,
	kishon@kernel.org, andersson@kernel.org, konradybcio@kernel.org,
	p.zabel@pengutronix.de, dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org,
	quic_nsekar@quicinc.com, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-phy@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 4/7] arm64: dts: qcom: ipq9574: Reorder reg and reg-names
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2025 11:33:44 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <e697cc99-e96b-4e84-8b70-23c5ef015a0d@oss.qualcomm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250122063411.3503097-5-quic_varada@quicinc.com>

On 22.01.2025 7:34 AM, Varadarajan Narayanan wrote:
> The 'reg' & 'reg-names' constraints used in the bindings and dtsi
> are different resulting in dt_bindings_check errors. Re-order
> them to address following errors.
> 
> 	arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq9574-rdp449.dtb: pcie@20000000: reg-names:0: 'parf' was expected
> 
> Signed-off-by: Varadarajan Narayanan <quic_varada@quicinc.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq9574.dtsi | 52 +++++++++++++++++----------
>  1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq9574.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq9574.dtsi
> index 942290028972..d27c55c7f6e4 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq9574.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq9574.dtsi
> @@ -876,12 +876,16 @@ frame@b128000 {
>  
>  		pcie1: pcie@10000000 {
>  			compatible = "qcom,pcie-ipq9574";
> -			reg =  <0x10000000 0xf1d>,
> -			       <0x10000f20 0xa8>,
> -			       <0x10001000 0x1000>,
> -			       <0x000f8000 0x4000>,
> -			       <0x10100000 0x1000>;
> -			reg-names = "dbi", "elbi", "atu", "parf", "config";
> +			reg = <0x000f8000 0x4000>,
> +			      <0x10000000 0xf1d>,
> +			      <0x10000f20 0xa8>,
> +			      <0x10001000 0x1000>,
> +			      <0x10100000 0x1000>;

The unit address (the one after '@' in the node definition) is supposed to
match the first 'reg' entry. So you need to update that and reorder the
nodes accordingly.

Krzysztof, is this acceptable to pick up given the reg entries are being
shuffled around?

Konrad