On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 10:39:24AM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 4:16 AM Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@bootlin.com> wrote:
> >
> > The soc node in the A80 DTSI has a ranges property, but no matching unit
> > address, which results in a DTC warning. Add the unit address to remove
> > that warning.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@bootlin.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/arm/boot/dts/sun9i-a80.dtsi | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun9i-a80.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun9i-a80.dtsi
> > index 9b15f272e5f5..7a495c84ab65 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun9i-a80.dtsi
> > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun9i-a80.dtsi
> > @@ -289,7 +289,7 @@
> >                 status = "disabled";
> >         };
> >
> > -       soc {
> > +       soc@20000 {
> 
> I thought we didn't like the soc node having an address?

In general, yes, but in general we also don't have a ranges property.

> Maybe we just bite the bullet and use 64-bit addresses and sizes for
> the A80?

I'd rather not, the current layout of the DT is pretty nice.

But now I'm thinking, do you remember why we need to do that mapping
in the first place? It's a 32bits SoCs, so why do we need to care
about 64 bits addresses?

Maxime

-- 
Maxime Ripard, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com