Re: [PATCH 1/3] arm64: dts: ti: k3-j7200-main: Add gpio nodes in main domain

Sekhar Nori
2020-11-13T19:09:31Z

On 14/11/20 12:10 AM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> On 23:59-20201113, Sekhar Nori wrote:
> [..]
>>> dtbs_check: we added:
>>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j7200-main.dtsi: /bus@100000/gpio@600000: Missing #address-cells in interrupt provider
>>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j7200-main.dtsi: /bus@100000/gpio@610000: Missing #address-cells in interrupt provider
>>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j7200-main.dtsi: /bus@100000/gpio@620000: Missing #address-cells in interrupt provider
>>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j7200-main.dtsi: /bus@100000/gpio@630000: Missing #address-cells in interrupt provider
>>
>> Hmm, running dtbs_check, I did not really see this. These are all the
>> warnings I see for TI platforms: https://pastebin.ubuntu.com/p/m2my62mjQq/
>
> Here is the full list of checks I ran through with kernel_patch_verify
> (docker)
> https://pastebin.ubuntu.com/p/tcnWw89CMD/
>
> See lines 128 onwards for this series. kernel_patch_verify does'nt
> complain on existing warnings, but just prints when there are additional
> ones added in. Also make sure we have the right dtc as well
> dtc 1.6.0 and dt_schema 2020.8.1 was used.

I was using the latest schema from master. But I changed to 2020.08.1
also, and still don't see the warning.

$ dt-doc-validate --version
2020.12.dev1+gab5a73fcef26

I dont have a system-wide dtc installed. One in kernel tree is updated.

$ scripts/dtc/dtc --version
Version: DTC 1.6.0-gcbca977e

Looking at your logs, it looks like you have more patches than just this
applied. I wonder if thats making a difference. Can you check with just
these patches applied to linux-next or share your tree which includes
other patches?

In your logs, you have such error for other interrupt controller nodes
as well. For example:

arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j7200-main.dtsi:
/bus@100000/bus@30000000/interrupt-controller1: Missing #address-cells
in interrupt provider

Which I don't see in my logs. My guess is some other patch(es) in your
patch stack either uncovers this warning or causes it.

>
>>
>> The tree I am testing is linux-next of 12th Nov + these three patches
>> applied.
>>
>> Also, #address-cells for interrupt provider being compulsory does not
>> make full sense to me. Nothing in
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/interrupts.txt or
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-davinci.txt suggests that as
>> well.
>>
>> Existing GPIO nodes for AM654 or J721E does not have #address-cells as well.
>>
>> Adding Grygorii as well, in case he knows more about this.
>
>
> Yes - we need to have this conversation in the community :) I had
> tagged this internally already during the 5.10 merge cycle that we
> need to clean up the #address-cells warning and in some cases, maybe
> the bindings are probably not accurate to attempt an enforcement.
> I'd really like a conclusion on the topic as I recollect Lokesh and
> Grygorii had a debate internally, but reached no conclusion, lets get
> the wisdom of the community to help us here.

Adding Lokesh to cc as well.

Thanks,
Sekhar