Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] arm64: dts: qcom: sm8550: remove address/size-cells from mdss_dsi1

[Aiqun Yu (Maria)]

On 12/19/2023 6:21 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 at 12:09, Aiqun Yu (Maria) <quic_aiquny@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 12/19/2023 5:41 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > On 19/12/2023 10:36, Aiqun Yu (Maria) wrote:
> > > > On 12/19/2023 3:17 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > > > On 19/12/2023 01:31, Tengfei Fan wrote:
> > > > > > The address/size-cells in mdss_dsi1 node have not ranges and child also
> > > > > > have not reg, then this leads to dtc W=1 warnings:
> > > > Comments can be more readable:
> > > > "mdss_dsi1" node don't have "ranges" or child "reg" property, while it
> > > > have address/size-cells properties. This caused
> > > > "avoid_unnecessary_addr_size" warning from dtb check.
> > > > Remove address/size-cells properties for "mdss_dsi1" node.
> > > >
> > > > > I cannot parse it. Address/size cells never have ranges or children.
> > > > > They cannot have. These are uint32 properties.
> > > > Pls help to comment on the revised commit message. Every time I write a
> > > > commit message, also takes a while for me to double confirm whether
> > > > others can understand me correctly as well. Feel free to let us know if
> > > > it is not readable to you. It will help us as non-English native developers.
> > > > > >      sm8550.dtsi:2937.27-2992.6: Warning (avoid_unnecessary_addr_size): /soc@0/display-subsystem@ae00000/dsi@ae96000:
> > > > > >        unnecessary #address-cells/#size-cells without "ranges" or child "reg" property
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Reviewed-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Tengfei Fan <quic_tengfan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > >
> > > > > I disagreed with the patch before. You resubmit it without really
> > > > > addressing my concerns.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am not sure if this is correct fix and I want to fix all of such
> > > > > errors (there are multiple of them) in the same way. Feel free to
> > > > > propose common solution based on arguments.
> > > > Per my understanding, "qcom,mdss-dsi-ctrl" driver node like "mdss_dsi1"
> > > > don't need to have address/size-cells properties.
> > >
> > > Just because dtc says so? And what about bindings?
> > I don't find any reason why "qcom,mdss-dsi-ctrl" driver node need to
> > have address/size-cells properties. Document Bindings should also be fixed.
> > > > Feel free to let us know whether there is different idea of
> > > > "address/size-cells" needed for the "qcom,mdss-dsi-ctrl" driver node.
> > >
> > > The bindings expressed that idea. If the binding is incorrect, fix the
> > > binding and the DTS. If the binding is correct, provide rationale why it
> > > somehow does not apply here etc.
> > Our plan is to fix the bindings as well.
> >
> > In case you have missed the question, I just re-place it here:
> > While there are about 22 different soc dtsi and it's document binding
> > files needed to be fixed. Shall we fix it for all qcom related soc usage
> > in one patch, or we'd better to split into different patches according
> > to soc specifically?
>
> Don't touch the bindings unless you understand what you are doing.
> Your patch will be NAKed. There can be a DSI panel attached to the DSI
> host, which means there is a need for #address-cells / #size-cells.
Could you please help to elaborate more on details? Like what's the 
right example here for the "qcom,mdss-dsi-ctrl" driver node needed to 
have "#address-cells"/"#size-cells".

Thx to chime in that we have put a good amount of time here.
> Please stop wasting the time on dtc warning. The bindings (and the
> file) are correct.
I don't agree here.
Either it is a wrong usage of "#address-cells"/"#size-cells", or dtc 
warning should be fixed with this usage take into account.
"dtb check" will be a good guideline for developers to follow, I don't 
think it is wasting time here.
>

--
Thx and BRs,
Aiqun(Maria) Yu