Re: [PATCH] scripts/dtc: Update to upstream version 53bf130b1cdd

From: Geert Uytterhoeven
Date: Tue Mar 08 2016 - 03:13:51 EST

Hi Rob,

On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 9:00 AM, Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 5:27 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Sync to upstream dtc commit 53bf130b1cdd ("libfdt: simplify
>>> fdt_node_check_compatible()"). This adds the following commits from
>>> upstream:
>>> 53bf130 libfdt: simplify fdt_node_check_compatible()
>>> c9d9121 Warn on node name unit-address presence/absence mismatch
>>> 2e53f9d Catch unsigned 32bit overflow when parsing flattened device tree offsets
>>> Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> As usual, this is just an automated copy of upstream dtc into the kernel
>>> tree. The changeset is small enough that I have left it here.
>>> The main reason for this sync is to pick-up the new unit-address
>>> warnings.
>> I gave this a try. Obviously it finds many abuses that should be fixed.
>> However, I'm wondering about the following, where the unit-address is just
>> used to distinguish between multiple instances:
>> Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): Node /cache-controller@0 has a unit
>> name, but no reg property
>> compatible = "cache";
> Just add a reg property. The values should probably match the MPIDR in
> some way (e.g. 0 and 100).

it's not "just" adding a reg property.
It's also introducing a "cache" subnode with "#address-cells = <1>" and
"#size-cells = <0>", and perhaps adding code to make the subnode work.
Or moving them under the cpu node, which is actually what the example in
ePAPR shows.

>> Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): Node /regulator@1 has a unit name,
>> but no reg property
>> compatible = "regulator-fixed"
> Regulators are oddball in that the node names are generally supposed
> to be the regulator name not generic.


>> Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): Node /i2c@2 has a unit name, but no
>> reg property
>> compatible = "i2c-gpio"
> You all should have all the on-chip devices under a simple-bus, then
> you would not have this namespace collision here. Still you could have

Fair enough.

> 2 i2c-gpio devices. We can add reg in those cases.

And it's not "just" adding a reg property. More "#address-cells = <1>" and
"#size-cells = <0>" glue needed here, too.
And an update of Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-gpio.txt



Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds