RE: [PATCH 03/15] dt-bindings: memory: fsl: convert ifc binding to yaml schema

[Leo Li]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 10:55 AM
> To: Leo Li <leoyang.li@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Oleksij Rempel <linux@rempel-
> privat.de>; Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx>; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Shawn Guo <shawnguo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/15] dt-bindings: memory: fsl: convert ifc binding to
> yaml schema
> 
> On Fri, 05 Feb 2021 17:47:22 -0600, Li Yang wrote:
> > Convert the txt binding to yaml format and add description.  Also
> > updated the recommended node name to ifc-bus to align with the
> > simple-bus node name requirements.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Li Yang <leoyang.li@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  .../bindings/memory-controllers/fsl/ifc.txt   |  82 ----------
> >  .../bindings/memory-controllers/fsl/ifc.yaml  | 140
> > ++++++++++++++++++
> >  2 files changed, 140 insertions(+), 82 deletions(-)  delete mode
> > 100644
> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/fsl/ifc.txt
> >  create mode 100644
> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/fsl/ifc.yaml
> >
> 
> My bot found errors running 'make dt_binding_check' on your patch:
> 
> yamllint warnings/errors:
> 
> dtschema/dtc warnings/errors:
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-
> controllers/fsl/ifc.example.dts:36.27-49.19: Warning (simple_bus_reg):
> /example-0/soc/ifc-bus@ffe1e000/flash@0,0: simple-bus unit address
> format error, expected "0"
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-
> controllers/fsl/ifc.example.dts:51.27-64.19: Warning (simple_bus_reg):
> /example-0/soc/ifc-bus@ffe1e000/flash@1,0: simple-bus unit address
> format error, expected "100000000"
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-
> controllers/fsl/ifc.example.dts:66.26-71.19: Warning (simple_bus_reg):
> /example-0/soc/ifc-bus@ffe1e000/cpld@3,0: simple-bus unit address format
> error, expected "300000000"

Hi Rob,

I saw these warnings, but cannot find a good solution to it.  The first cell in the address is the Chip select, while the second cell in the address is the address offset within the chip select.  It would confusing to combine the two cells of different purposes into a single address as suggested by the warning.  Can we allow the multi-cell address in the node name?

Regards,
Leo