From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johan Jonker Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] ARM: dts: rockchip: add missing @0 to memory nodenames Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2020 23:21:52 +0100 Message-ID: <2a5ef6fc-2487-91ef-24ce-97dd47b0a137@gmail.com> References: <20200304074051.8742-1-jbx6244@gmail.com> <20200304074051.8742-2-jbx6244@gmail.com> <1784340.9KJLpVao5L@phil> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1784340.9KJLpVao5L@phil> Content-Language: en-US Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Heiko Stuebner , robh+dt-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org Cc: devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, linux-rockchip-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-rockchip.vger.kernel.org Hi Heiko, Goal was to reduce the error output of existing code a little bit, so that we can use it for the review of new patches. Some questions: As I don't have the hardware, where else is coreboot used? Is this a rk3288-veyron.dtsi problem only? ie. Is it a option to produce a patch serie v2 without veyron? Can someone help testing? Johan On 3/5/20 10:31 PM, Heiko Stuebner wrote: > Hi Johan, > > Am Mittwoch, 4. März 2020, 08:40:50 CET schrieb Johan Jonker: >> A test with the command below gives for example this error: >> >> arch/arm/boot/dts/rk3288-tinker.dt.yaml: /: memory: >> False schema does not allow >> {'device_type': ['memory'], 'reg': [[0, 0, 0, 2147483648]]} >> >> The memory nodes all have a reg property that requires '@' in >> the nodename. Fix this error by adding the missing '@0' to >> the involved memory nodenames. >> >> make ARCH=arm dtbs_check >> DT_SCHEMA_FILES=~/.local/lib/python3.5/site-packages/dtschema/ >> schemas/root-node.yaml > > changes to memory nodes you sadly cannot do in such an automated fashion. > If you read the comment in rk3288-veyron.dtsi you'll see that a previous > similar iteration broke all of those machines as their coreboot doesn't > copy with memory@0 and would insert another memory node without @0 > > In the past iteration the consensus then was that memory without @0 > is also ok (as it isn't changeable anyway). > > As I don't really want to repeat that, I'd like actual hardware tests > before touching memory nodes. Any suggestion/feedback rapport welcome. > > Heiko > >