From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.4 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14623C55ABD for ; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 19:09:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8216820A8B for ; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 19:09:30 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ti.com header.i=@ti.com header.b="hXjVDeVj" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1725866AbgKMTJa (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Nov 2020 14:09:30 -0500 Received: from fllv0015.ext.ti.com ([198.47.19.141]:35272 "EHLO fllv0015.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726121AbgKMTJ3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Nov 2020 14:09:29 -0500 Received: from fllv0034.itg.ti.com ([10.64.40.246]) by fllv0015.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 0ADJ9O9w065948; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 13:09:24 -0600 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1605294564; bh=vTFMOQepr1ENT3zHa621HEf1PPDSTxsDdGqDVMrAaUI=; h=Subject:To:CC:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=hXjVDeVj3T7VCKveabDwoP3NgcVJaPriytdVahjauefig62wCQKQJkDRLtn/WMOEc c/QwPQqJj6/i7lkGfOSoLN8T5lPvk6aJLJoxKcf8T5CcNVc5oQEJ7+BnKWuH5G66av Yf8TQVeRnGy6aF6KdVrbomq55fZvZlWCHJNspavU= Received: from DFLE114.ent.ti.com (dfle114.ent.ti.com [10.64.6.35]) by fllv0034.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 0ADJ9OUc060020 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 13 Nov 2020 13:09:24 -0600 Received: from DFLE108.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.29) by DFLE114.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1979.3; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 13:09:24 -0600 Received: from lelv0326.itg.ti.com (10.180.67.84) by DFLE108.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.29) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1979.3 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 13:09:24 -0600 Received: from [10.24.69.198] (ileax41-snat.itg.ti.com [10.172.224.153]) by lelv0326.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 0ADJ9Jlg077626; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 13:09:20 -0600 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] arm64: dts: ti: k3-j7200-main: Add gpio nodes in main domain To: Nishanth Menon , Lokesh Vutla CC: Faiz Abbas , , , , , , Grygorii Strashko , "Vutla, Lokesh" References: <20201102191120.20380-1-faiz_abbas@ti.com> <20201102191120.20380-2-faiz_abbas@ti.com> <20201112163953.soia5cje4ry42ujf@kahuna> <6ce6de4b-6e4d-1d2d-aa7a-570d1796d668@ti.com> <20201113184020.drntugqsnj7dzsnh@ultimatum> From: Sekhar Nori Message-ID: Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2020 00:39:18 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20201113184020.drntugqsnj7dzsnh@ultimatum> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e1e8a2fd-e40a-4ac6-ac9b-f7e9cc9ee180 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org 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