Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] arm64: dts: ti: k3: squelch warnings regarding no #address-cells for interrupt-controller

From: Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>
To: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com>
Cc: Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@ti.com>, Tero Kristo <t-kristo@ti.com>,
	Device Tree Mailing List <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	Linux ARM Mailing List <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Faiz Abbas <faiz_abbas@ti.com>,
	Lokesh Vutla <lokeshvutla@ti.com>,
	Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] arm64: dts: ti: k3: squelch warnings regarding no #address-cells for interrupt-controller
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2020 09:12:59 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201118151259.kpag44djji4ssiup@eldest> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ab9658ef-c8a7-155b-acb1-effa872132ca@ti.com>

On 13:38-20201118, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
> Hi Rob,
> 
> On 17/11/2020 18:19, Sekhar Nori wrote:
> > With dtc 1.6.0, building TI device-tree files with W=2 results in warnings
> > like below for all interrupt controllers.
> > 
> > /bus@100000/bus@30000000/interrupt-controller1: Missing #address-cells in interrupt provider
> > 
> > Fix these by adding #address-cells = <0>; for all interrupt controllers in
> > TI device-tree files. Any other #address-cells value is really only needed
> > if interrupt-map property is being used (which is not the case for existing
> > TI device-tree files)
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@ti.com>
> > ---
> >   arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am65-main.dtsi              |  5 +++++
> >   arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am65-wakeup.dtsi            |  2 ++
> >   arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am654-base-board.dts        |  1 +
> >   arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j7200-main.dtsi             |  3 +++
> >   arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j7200-mcu-wakeup.dtsi       |  1 +
> >   arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e-common-proc-board.dts |  1 +
> >   arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e-main.dtsi             | 11 +++++++++++
> >   arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e-mcu-wakeup.dtsi       |  3 +++
> >   8 files changed, 27 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am65-main.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am65-main.dtsi
> > index aa8725db0187..55aaa1404d7d 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am65-main.dtsi
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am65-main.dtsi
> > @@ -440,6 +440,7 @@
> >   		interrupt-controller;
> >   		interrupt-parent = <&gic500>;
> >   		#interrupt-cells = <1>;
> > +		#address-cells = <0>;
> Does it really required or mandatory to have #address-cells = <0>; defined for interrupt-controller DT nodes which
> do not have child nodes and no "interrupt-map"?

Just to help clarify (I could be mistaken as well): is'nt the
interrupt map for user interrupt map nodes that refer to this
interrupt controller node to state they dont need a parent address
specifier - so are we claiming none of the users will have an
interrupt-map (now and never in the future as well) - we we might want
to explain why we think that is the case, and if we are expecting dtc
to deduce that (if so how?)?

-- 
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
Key (0xDDB5849D1736249D) / Fingerprint: F8A2 8693 54EB 8232 17A3  1A34 DDB5 849D 1736 249D