Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] ARM: dts: stm32: fix several DT warnings on stm32mp15

[Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>]

On 5/29/23 10:07, Raphael Gallais-Pou wrote:

Hi,

>>>> I think if you retain the stm32mp151.dtsi &ltdc { port { #address-cells = <1>;
>>>> #size-cells = <0>; }; }; part, then you wouldn't be getting any warnings
>>>> regarding LTDC , and you wouldn't have to remove the unit-address from
>>>> endpoint@0 .
>>>>
>>>> btw. I do use both endpoint@0/endpoint@1 in Avenger96 DTOs, but those are not
>>>> submitted yet, I have to clean them up a bit more first.
>>>>
>>>>> One way to do it would be to make the endpoint@0 go down in the device-tree
>>>>> with
>>>>> its dependencies, so that both endpoints are the same level without generating
>>>>> noise.
>>>>
>>>> I'm afraid I really don't quite understand which warning you're referring to.
>>>> Can you please share that warning and ideally how to trigger it (the
>>>> command-line incantation) ?
>>>
>>> Using '$ make dtbs W=1', you can observe several of the followings:
>>>
>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp151.dtsi:1533.9-1536.6: Warning
>>> (avoid_unnecessary_addr_size): /soc/display-controller@5a001000/port:
>>> unnecessary #address-cells/#size-cells without "ranges" or child "reg" property
>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp151.dtsi:1533.9-1536.6: Warning (graph_child_address):
>>> /soc/display-controller@5a001000/port: graph node has single child node
>>> 'endpoint@0', #address-cells/#size-cells are not necessary
>>>
>>> This &ltdc { port { #address-cells = <1>; #size-cells = <0>; }; }; part is
>>> actually annoying. This is because there is several device-trees that only got
>>> one endpoint, and some other that includes two.
>>>
>>> For instance: stm32mp15xx-dhcor-avenger96.dtsi vs stm32mp157c-dk2.dts.
>>>
>>> I would like to remove to root part of address/size field and let only the lower
>>> device-trees with with multiple endpoints handle their own fields. I hope this
>>> explains a bit better my process.
>>
>> After thinking about this some more, and digging through LTDC driver, and
>> testing on EV1, I think dropping the LTDC node endpoint@N and reg=<N>
>> altogether and just using port/endpoint (singular) is fine.
>>
>> You might want to split the DSI node specific changes and the LTDC node
>> specific changes into separate patches (LTDC specific change like you did in
>> 1/3).
> 
> Yes, I prepared a new serie with that split, to that it is better to read and
> review.

Thank you !