From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/14] ARM: dts: armada-375: Fixup bootrom DT warning Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 09:22:21 +0100 Message-ID: <20161110092221.0219490b@free-electrons.com> References: <20161110001000.10619-1-gregory.clement@free-electrons.com> <20161110001000.10619-5-gregory.clement@free-electrons.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20161110001000.10619-5-gregory.clement@free-electrons.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Gregory CLEMENT Cc: Andrew Lunn , Jason Cooper , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Rob Herring , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Sebastian Hesselbarth List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Hello, On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 01:09:50 +0100, Gregory CLEMENT wrote: > - bootrom { > + bootrom@0 { > compatible = "marvell,bootrom"; > reg = ; I am still not sure whether this "0" unit address is correct compared to the reg property being passed. A good example of why I'm worried is the sa-sram case: + crypto_sram0: sa-sram0@0 { compatible = "mmio-sram"; reg = ; + crypto_sram1: sa-sram1@0 { compatible = "mmio-sram"; reg = ; The node names should be just "sram" without a number. Indeed for UARTs for example, you use uart@XYZ, uart@ABC and not uart0@XYZ and uart1@ABC. But then, if you do that, with your scheme, you end up with both nodes named sa-sram@0. Which clearly shows that the way you set this unit-address is not correct: those two devices are mapped at completely different locations, but you end up with an identical unit address. I have no idea what is the rule for setting the unit address in this case, but I'm pretty sure the rule you've chosen is not good. Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com