MIPS DT W=1 warnings (was Re: [PATCH v5 2/5] MIPS: mscc: add ocelot dtsi)

[James Hogan]

Hi Rob,

On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 10:08:28AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> Please compile with W=1 and fix any issues like this one which is a
> unit-address without a reg property. Drop the unit-address.

I was just giving the BMIPS W=1 DT warnings a look, and a few look
spurious. I'd value your opinion on their legitimacy (its hard to care
about W=1 if spurious or seemingly pedantic warnings are going to be
common). e.g.


1)
arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm9ejtagprb.dtb: Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): Node /ubus/syscon-reboot@10000068 has a unit name, but no reg property          

due to:

periph_cntl: syscon@fff8c000 {
	compatible = "syscon";
	reg = <0xfff8c000 0xc>;
	native-endian;
};

reboot: syscon-reboot@fff8c008 {
	compatible = "syscon-reboot";
	regmap = <&periph_cntl>;
	offset = <0x8>;
	mask = <0x1>;
};

That doesn't seem to take regmap into account. Would you strictly drop
the unit-address in this case, or is there a way the DT compiler can be
fixed (i presume offset and mask are binding specific, so the best it
could do is probably to allow the unit-address due to the regmap without
checking the actual address)?


2)
arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm9ejtagprb.dtb: Warning (simple_bus_reg): Node /ubus/syscon-reboot@10000068 missing or empty reg/ranges property

Same code as above. Should syscon-reboot be outside of the simple-bus
that both nodes are in, or is it fine there? There's a similar warning
from a DTS which has a syscon property instead of regmap.


3)
arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm97425svmb.dtb: Warning (simple_bus_reg): Node /rdb@10000000/spi@41c000 simple-bus unit address format error, expected "419920"

qspi: spi@41c000 {
	#address-cells = <0x1>;
	#size-cells = <0x0>;
	compatible = "brcm,spi-bcm-qspi",
		     "brcm,spi-brcmstb-qspi";
	clocks = <&upg_clk>;
	reg = <0x419920 0x4 0x41c200 0x188 0x41c000 0x50>;
	reg-names = "cs_reg", "hif_mspi", "bspi";
	...

Well 41c000 is one of the reg entries, just not the first. I presume
bspi is the "main" one, perhaps that should come first since we have
reg-names, but even that could potentially confuse driver code if it
didn't find reg resources by name (in this case it does appear to, so
perhaps that would fine)?


Thanks
James

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature