From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mark.rutland@arm.com (Mark Rutland) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 18:48:03 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 2/5] arm64, thunder: Add initial dts for Cavium Thunder SoC In-Reply-To: References: <1406732794-20920-1-git-send-email-rric@kernel.org> <1406732794-20920-3-git-send-email-rric@kernel.org> <20140730154626.GD20162@leverpostej> Message-ID: <20140730174803.GF20162@leverpostej> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org [...] > >> + gic0: interrupt-controller at 801000000000 { > > > > To make this easier to read, please place a comma between 32-bit > > portions of the unit address (e.g. here have 8010,00000000). > > Mark, perhaps a dtc or checkpatch.pl check for this? Sure. Dodgy first atttempt at checkpatch below. ---->8---- diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl index 182be0f..8aee3f5 100755 --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl @@ -2136,6 +2136,14 @@ sub process { } } +# check for difficult-to-read unit-addresses + if (defined $root && + ($realfile =~ /\.dtsi?$/ && $line =~ /([a-z0-9._\-+]++@([0-9a-f]+))\s*{/gi) && + (length($2) > 8)) { + WARN("LONG_DT_UNIT_ADDRESS", + "Consider splitting long unit address \"$2\" with a comma between cells\n" . $herecurr); + } + # check we are in a valid source file if not then ignore this hunk next if ($realfile !~ /\.(h|c|s|S|pl|sh)$/); ----8<---- It would also be nice to check matching unit-address and reg, but doing that correctly requires knowing #address-cells, which sounds a little painful. I'm not sure where I picked up the comma convention, as it doesn't seem to be in ePAPR. It does seem common though, and is my personal preference: [mark at leverpostej:~/src/linux]% git grep '@[a-z0-9]\+,[a-b0-9]\+' \ -- arch/arm/boot/dts | wc -l 254 [mark at leverpostej:~/src/linux]% git grep '@[a-z0-9]\+,[a-b0-9]\+' \ -- arch/powerpc/boot/dts | wc -l 370 [mark@leverpostej:~/src/linux]% git grep '@[a-z0-9]\+,[a-b0-9]\+' \ -- arch/*/boot/dts | wc -l 631 [...] > >> + uaa0: serial at 87e024000000 { > >> + compatible = "arm,pl011", "arm,primecell"; > >> + reg = <0x87e0 0x24000000 0x0 0x1000>; > >> + interrupts = <1 21 4>; > >> + clocks = <&refclk50mhz>; > >> + clock-names = "apb_pclk"; > > > > Is this actually the apb_pclk, or is the the uartclk? I assume it's the > > latter. > > Shouldn't new bindings have both clocks here? A single clock was a > mistake I think (mine in fact). I don't think we fixed it up in the end. It made drivers look a bit messy and it dropped off my priority queue. Cheers, Mark.