Re: [PATCH 12/13] ARM: dts: stm32: fix DSI port node on STM32MP15

From: Alexandre TORGUE <alexandre.torgue@foss.st.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@pengutronix.de>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>, Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>,
	Jagan Teki <jagan@amarulasolutions.com>,
	Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>,
	Marcin Sloniewski <marcin.sloniewski@gmail.com>,
	Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	DTML <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	<linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/13] ARM: dts: stm32: fix DSI port node on STM32MP15
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 16:04:01 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <f37abf6d-f82b-e253-d9f9-772df0b800d1@foss.st.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a1bGAUbqTGqyz+PB=7fuVLkJce0awtx1Z9PE3uiX6uysQ@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/19/21 3:57 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 2:23 PM Alexandre TORGUE
> <alexandre.torgue@foss.st.com> wrote:
>> On 4/15/21 12:43 PM, Ahmad Fatoum wrote:
>>> On 15.04.21 12:10, Alexandre Torgue wrote:
>>>> Running "make dtbs_check W=1", some warnings are reported concerning
>>>> DSI. This patch reorder DSI nodes to avoid:
>>>>
>>>> soc/dsi@5a000000: unnecessary #address-cells/#size-cells without
>>>> "ranges" or child "reg" property
>>>
>>> This reverts parts of commit 9c32f980d9 ("ARM: dts: stm32: preset
>>> stm32mp15x video #address- and #size-cells"):
>>>
>>>       The cell count for address and size is defined by the binding and not
>>>       something a board would change. Avoid each board adding this
>>>       boilerplate by having the cell size specification in the SoC DTSI.
>>>
>>>
>>> The DSI can have child nodes with a unit address (e.g. a panel) and ones
>>> without (ports { } container). ports is described in the dtsi, panels are
>>> described in the dts if available.
>>>
>>> Apparently, the checker is fine with
>>> ports {
>>>        #address-cells = <1>;
>>>        #size-cells = <0>;
>>> };
>>>
>>> I think my rationale for the patch above was sound, so I think the checker
>>> taking offense at the DSI cells here should be considered a false positive.
>>
>> If it's a "false positive" warning then we need to find a way to not
>> print it out. Else, it'll be difficult to distinguish which warnings are
>> "normal" and which are not. This question could also be applied to patch[3].
>>
>> Arnd, Rob what is your feeling about this case ?
> 
> I don't have a strong opinion on this either way, but I would just
> not apply this one for 5.13 in this case. Rob, Alexandre, please
> let me know if I should apply the other patches before the
> merge window, I usually don't mind taking bugfixes late before the
> merge window, but I still want some level of confidence that they
> are actually correct.

For me, we can keep this series for the v5.14 cycle.

regards
alex

> 
> Ahmad, if you feel strongly about this particular issue, would you like
> to suggest a patch for the checker?
> 
>          Arnd
> 