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: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 10:47:55 +0100 Message-ID: <5af5bdfd-3522-9066-8bde-84a5e468be32@gmail.com> References: <20200304074051.8742-1-jbx6244@gmail.com> <1784340.9KJLpVao5L@phil> <2a5ef6fc-2487-91ef-24ce-97dd47b0a137@gmail.com> <7869677.iSBujUIW6u@phil> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <7869677.iSBujUIW6u@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, Rob, >From https://coreboot.org/status/board-status.html The only supported boards listed are: Veyron Rockchip RK3288 boards Veyron Mickey Rockchip RK3288 board Veyron Rialto Rockchip RK3288 board Gru Rockchip RK3399 reference board Fixed with: ARM: dts: rockchip: Remove @0 from the veyron memory node https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10688081/ The problem is rk3288-veyron only I think. Else fix coreboot to comply with DT rules, not the other way around. Will make v2. Can robh give advice here? Thanks On 3/6/20 12:58 AM, Heiko Stuebner wrote: > Hi Johan, Rob, > > Am Donnerstag, 5. März 2020, 23:21:52 CET schrieb Johan Jonker: >> 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? > > I believe that is more question for @Rob : > > In the past we said that it would be ok to have "memory" nodes without > address, so "memory {}" instead of "memory@0 {}", simply because > bootloaders mess up sometimes. > > Question now would be how to make the yaml bindings happy. > > Thanks > Heiko > > >> >> 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 >>> >>> >> > > > >