From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Warren Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] arm64: dts: berlin4ct: add missing unit name to /soc node Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 10:04:36 -0600 Message-ID: <25d8bfb3-0dbc-8c8d-019c-381d0a1d2994@wwwdotorg.org> References: <20160906085557.4019-1-jszhang@marvell.com> <20160906085557.4019-2-jszhang@marvell.com> <20160906102208.GB1425@leverpostej> <20160906182048.222cec2f@xhacker> <20160906105758.GD1425@leverpostej> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20160906105758.GD1425@leverpostej> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Mark Rutland , robh+dt@kernel.org Cc: Jisheng Zhang , swarren@nvidia.com, sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will.deacon@arm.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 09/06/2016 04:57 AM, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 06:20:48PM +0800, Jisheng Zhang wrote: >> Hi Mark, >> >> On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 11:22:08 +0100 Mark Rutland wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 04:55:55PM +0800, Jisheng Zhang wrote: >>>> This patch fixes the following DTC warning with W=1: >>>> >>>> "Node /soc has a reg or ranges property, but no unit name" >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Jisheng Zhang >>> >>> The node is only compatible with simple-bus, and so shouldn't have a >>> reg. >> >> IIUC, the warning is caused by "ranges = <0 0 0xf7000000 0x1000000>;" > > Hmm.. I've rather confused by that warning. Per ePAPR and the > devicetree.org spec, the unit-addresss is meant to match the reg > property, and no mention is made of the ranges property. So I do not > think that it is necessary to require this. > > That warning seems to have gone into DTC in commit c9d9121683b35281 > ("Warn on node name unit-address presence/absence mismatch"). > > Rob, Stephen, was there some discussion that prompted ranges requiring > a matching unit-address? It looks like there was some in response to V2 of the patch which introduced this warning in dtc: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/9/19/301 I assume that's why Rob added that part to the patch when he reposted it.