[PATCH v2 0/4] arm64: dts: ti: J7200 GPIO support and warning fixes

[PATCH v2 0/4] arm64: dts: ti: J7200 GPIO support and warning fixes

[Sekhar Nori]

These patches add gpio support for TI's J7200 platform. The first
two patches fix existing warnings in preparation for adding GPIO
support.

Changes in v2:
- Add patches fixing existing warnings so GPIO support does not
  end up adding more warnings
- Addressed Nishanth's comments on GPIO patches
  - merge patches adding main and wakeup domain GPIOs into single patch
  - fix commit description going over 75 chars
  - fix W=2 warnings about lack of #address-cells in GPIO nodes

Faiz Abbas (2):
  arm64: dts: ti: k3-j7200: Add gpio nodes
  arm64: dts: ti: k3-j7200-common-proc-board: Disable unused gpio
    modules

Sekhar Nori (2):
  arm64: dts: ti: k3: squelch warning about lack of #interrupt-cells
  arm64: dts: ti: k3: squelch warnings regarding no #address-cells for
    interrupt-controller

 arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am65-main.dtsi      |  6 ++
 arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am65-wakeup.dtsi    |  2 +
 .../arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am654-base-board.dts |  1 +
 .../dts/ti/k3-j7200-common-proc-board.dts     | 16 ++++
 arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j7200-main.dtsi     | 75 +++++++++++++++++++
 .../boot/dts/ti/k3-j7200-mcu-wakeup.dtsi      | 35 +++++++++
 .../dts/ti/k3-j721e-common-proc-board.dts     |  1 +
 arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e-main.dtsi     | 12 +++
 .../boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e-mcu-wakeup.dtsi      |  3 +
 9 files changed, 151 insertions(+)

-- 
2.17.1

[PATCH v2 1/4] arm64: dts: ti: k3: squelch warning about lack of #interrupt-cells

[Sekhar Nori]

There are couple of places where INTA interrupt controller
lacks #interrupt-cells property. This leads to warnings of
the type:

arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e-main.dtsi:147.51-156.5: Warning (interrupt_provider): /bus@100000/main-navss/interrupt-controller@33d00000: Missing #interrupt-cells in interrupt provider

When building TI device-tree files with W=2 warning level.
Fix these.

Signed-off-by: Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@ti.com>
---
 arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am65-main.dtsi  | 1 +
 arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e-main.dtsi | 1 +
 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am65-main.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am65-main.dtsi
index 3eeb6e9876db..aa8725db0187 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am65-main.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am65-main.dtsi
@@ -473,6 +473,7 @@
 			interrupt-controller;
 			interrupt-parent = <&intr_main_navss>;
 			msi-controller;
+			#interrupt-cells = <0>;
 			ti,sci = <&dmsc>;
 			ti,sci-dev-id = <179>;
 			ti,interrupt-ranges = <0 0 256>;
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e-main.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e-main.dtsi
index e2a96b2c423c..ffedd9531362 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e-main.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e-main.dtsi
@@ -148,6 +148,7 @@
 			interrupt-controller;
 			interrupt-parent = <&main_navss_intr>;
 			msi-controller;
+			#interrupt-cells = <0>;
 			ti,sci = <&dmsc>;
 			ti,sci-dev-id = <209>;
 			ti,interrupt-ranges = <0 0 256>;
-- 
2.17.1

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

[Sekhar Nori]

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>;
 		ti,sci = <&dmsc>;
 		ti,sci-dev-id = <100>;
 		ti,interrupt-ranges = <0 392 32>;
@@ -461,6 +462,7 @@
 			interrupt-controller;
 			interrupt-parent = <&gic500>;
 			#interrupt-cells = <1>;
+			#address-cells = <0>;
 			ti,sci = <&dmsc>;
 			ti,sci-dev-id = <182>;
 			ti,interrupt-ranges = <0 64 64>,
@@ -474,6 +476,7 @@
 			interrupt-parent = <&intr_main_navss>;
 			msi-controller;
 			#interrupt-cells = <0>;
+			#address-cells = <0>;
 			ti,sci = <&dmsc>;
 			ti,sci-dev-id = <179>;
 			ti,interrupt-ranges = <0 0 256>;
@@ -670,6 +673,7 @@
 		interrupts = <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>;
 		interrupt-controller;
 		#interrupt-cells = <2>;
+		#address-cells = <0>;
 		ti,ngpio = <96>;
 		ti,davinci-gpio-unbanked = <0>;
 		clocks = <&k3_clks 57 0>;
@@ -685,6 +689,7 @@
 		interrupts = <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>;
 		interrupt-controller;
 		#interrupt-cells = <2>;
+		#address-cells = <0>;
 		ti,ngpio = <90>;
 		ti,davinci-gpio-unbanked = <0>;
 		clocks = <&k3_clks 58 0>;
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am65-wakeup.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am65-wakeup.dtsi
index ed42f13e7663..7fe5782a1f79 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am65-wakeup.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am65-wakeup.dtsi
@@ -75,6 +75,7 @@
 		interrupt-controller;
 		interrupt-parent = <&gic500>;
 		#interrupt-cells = <1>;
+		#address-cells = <0>;
 		ti,sci = <&dmsc>;
 		ti,sci-dev-id = <156>;
 		ti,interrupt-ranges = <0 712 16>;
@@ -89,6 +90,7 @@
 		interrupts = <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>;
 		interrupt-controller;
 		#interrupt-cells = <2>;
+		#address-cells = <0>;
 		ti,ngpio = <56>;
 		ti,davinci-gpio-unbanked = <0>;
 		clocks = <&k3_clks 59 0>;
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am654-base-board.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am654-base-board.dts
index d12dd89f3405..376de272cb4e 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am654-base-board.dts
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am654-base-board.dts
@@ -236,6 +236,7 @@
 		interrupts = <25 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING>;
 		interrupt-controller;
 		#interrupt-cells = <2>;
+		#address-cells = <0>;
 	};
 };
 
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j7200-main.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j7200-main.dtsi
index 72d6496e88dd..d07081b20aee 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j7200-main.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j7200-main.dtsi
@@ -67,6 +67,7 @@
 		interrupt-controller;
 		interrupt-parent = <&gic500>;
 		#interrupt-cells = <1>;
+		#address-cells = <0>;
 		ti,sci = <&dmsc>;
 		ti,sci-dev-id = <131>;
 		ti,interrupt-ranges = <8 392 56>;
@@ -85,6 +86,7 @@
 			interrupt-controller;
 			interrupt-parent = <&gic500>;
 			#interrupt-cells = <1>;
+			#address-cells = <0>;
 			ti,sci = <&dmsc>;
 			ti,sci-dev-id = <213>;
 			ti,interrupt-ranges = <0 64 64>,
@@ -97,6 +99,7 @@
 			reg = <0x00 0x33d00000 0x00 0x100000>;
 			interrupt-controller;
 			#interrupt-cells = <0>;
+			#address-cells = <0>;
 			interrupt-parent = <&main_navss_intr>;
 			msi-controller;
 			ti,sci = <&dmsc>;
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j7200-mcu-wakeup.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j7200-mcu-wakeup.dtsi
index eb2a78a53512..4801876bd107 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j7200-mcu-wakeup.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j7200-mcu-wakeup.dtsi
@@ -102,6 +102,7 @@
 		interrupt-controller;
 		interrupt-parent = <&gic500>;
 		#interrupt-cells = <1>;
+		#address-cells = <0>;
 		ti,sci = <&dmsc>;
 		ti,sci-dev-id = <137>;
 		ti,interrupt-ranges = <16 960 16>;
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e-common-proc-board.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e-common-proc-board.dts
index 52e121155563..0490cb15f0c9 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e-common-proc-board.dts
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e-common-proc-board.dts
@@ -442,6 +442,7 @@
 		interrupts = <11 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING>;
 		interrupt-controller;
 		#interrupt-cells = <2>;
+		#address-cells = <0>;
 	};
 };
 
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e-main.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e-main.dtsi
index ffedd9531362..7f44692e15ec 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e-main.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e-main.dtsi
@@ -114,6 +114,7 @@
 		interrupt-controller;
 		interrupt-parent = <&gic500>;
 		#interrupt-cells = <1>;
+		#address-cells = <0>;
 		ti,sci = <&dmsc>;
 		ti,sci-dev-id = <131>;
 		ti,interrupt-ranges = <8 392 56>;
@@ -135,6 +136,7 @@
 			interrupt-controller;
 			interrupt-parent = <&gic500>;
 			#interrupt-cells = <1>;
+			#address-cells = <0>;
 			ti,sci = <&dmsc>;
 			ti,sci-dev-id = <213>;
 			ti,interrupt-ranges = <0 64 64>,
@@ -149,6 +151,7 @@
 			interrupt-parent = <&main_navss_intr>;
 			msi-controller;
 			#interrupt-cells = <0>;
+			#address-cells = <0>;
 			ti,sci = <&dmsc>;
 			ti,sci-dev-id = <209>;
 			ti,interrupt-ranges = <0 0 256>;
@@ -948,6 +951,7 @@
 			     <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>;
 		interrupt-controller;
 		#interrupt-cells = <2>;
+		#address-cells = <0>;
 		ti,ngpio = <128>;
 		ti,davinci-gpio-unbanked = <0>;
 		power-domains = <&k3_pds 105 TI_SCI_PD_EXCLUSIVE>;
@@ -964,6 +968,7 @@
 		interrupts = <288>, <289>, <290>;
 		interrupt-controller;
 		#interrupt-cells = <2>;
+		#address-cells = <0>;
 		ti,ngpio = <36>;
 		ti,davinci-gpio-unbanked = <0>;
 		power-domains = <&k3_pds 106 TI_SCI_PD_EXCLUSIVE>;
@@ -981,6 +986,7 @@
 			     <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>;
 		interrupt-controller;
 		#interrupt-cells = <2>;
+		#address-cells = <0>;
 		ti,ngpio = <128>;
 		ti,davinci-gpio-unbanked = <0>;
 		power-domains = <&k3_pds 107 TI_SCI_PD_EXCLUSIVE>;
@@ -997,6 +1003,7 @@
 		interrupts = <292>, <293>, <294>;
 		interrupt-controller;
 		#interrupt-cells = <2>;
+		#address-cells = <0>;
 		ti,ngpio = <36>;
 		ti,davinci-gpio-unbanked = <0>;
 		power-domains = <&k3_pds 108 TI_SCI_PD_EXCLUSIVE>;
@@ -1014,6 +1021,7 @@
 			     <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>;
 		interrupt-controller;
 		#interrupt-cells = <2>;
+		#address-cells = <0>;
 		ti,ngpio = <128>;
 		ti,davinci-gpio-unbanked = <0>;
 		power-domains = <&k3_pds 109 TI_SCI_PD_EXCLUSIVE>;
@@ -1030,6 +1038,7 @@
 		interrupts = <296>, <297>, <298>;
 		interrupt-controller;
 		#interrupt-cells = <2>;
+		#address-cells = <0>;
 		ti,ngpio = <36>;
 		ti,davinci-gpio-unbanked = <0>;
 		power-domains = <&k3_pds 110 TI_SCI_PD_EXCLUSIVE>;
@@ -1047,6 +1056,7 @@
 			     <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>;
 		interrupt-controller;
 		#interrupt-cells = <2>;
+		#address-cells = <0>;
 		ti,ngpio = <128>;
 		ti,davinci-gpio-unbanked = <0>;
 		power-domains = <&k3_pds 111 TI_SCI_PD_EXCLUSIVE>;
@@ -1063,6 +1073,7 @@
 		interrupts = <300>, <301>, <302>;
 		interrupt-controller;
 		#interrupt-cells = <2>;
+		#address-cells = <0>;
 		ti,ngpio = <36>;
 		ti,davinci-gpio-unbanked = <0>;
 		power-domains = <&k3_pds 112 TI_SCI_PD_EXCLUSIVE>;
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e-mcu-wakeup.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e-mcu-wakeup.dtsi
index e581cb1d87ee..ed3098ed7b56 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e-mcu-wakeup.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e-mcu-wakeup.dtsi
@@ -102,6 +102,7 @@
 		interrupt-controller;
 		interrupt-parent = <&gic500>;
 		#interrupt-cells = <1>;
+		#address-cells = <0>;
 		ti,sci = <&dmsc>;
 		ti,sci-dev-id = <137>;
 		ti,interrupt-ranges = <16 960 16>;
@@ -116,6 +117,7 @@
 		interrupts = <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>;
 		interrupt-controller;
 		#interrupt-cells = <2>;
+		#address-cells = <0>;
 		ti,ngpio = <84>;
 		ti,davinci-gpio-unbanked = <0>;
 		power-domains = <&k3_pds 113 TI_SCI_PD_EXCLUSIVE>;
@@ -132,6 +134,7 @@
 		interrupts = <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>;
 		interrupt-controller;
 		#interrupt-cells = <2>;
+		#address-cells = <0>;
 		ti,ngpio = <84>;
 		ti,davinci-gpio-unbanked = <0>;
 		power-domains = <&k3_pds 114 TI_SCI_PD_EXCLUSIVE>;
-- 
2.17.1

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

[Grygorii Strashko]

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"?

-- 
Best regards,
grygorii

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

[Nishanth Menon]

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

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

[Grygorii Strashko]

On 18/11/2020 17:12, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> 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?)?
> 

The main reason I commented - is hope to get some clarification from DT maintainers.
90% of interrupt-controller nodes do not have #address-cells and I never seen in in GPIO nodes
(most often is present in PCI and GIC nodes).
and nobody seems fixing it. So, if we are going to move this direction it's reasonable to get clarification to be sure.

And there is no "never" here - #address-cells always can be added if really required.

-- 
Best regards,
grygorii

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

[Nishanth Menon]

Punting over to Rob and DT team's wisdom..

On 13:17-20201119, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
> 
> 
> On 18/11/2020 17:12, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> > 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?)?
> > 
> 
> The main reason I commented - is hope to get some clarification from DT maintainers.
> 90% of interrupt-controller nodes do not have #address-cells and I never seen in in GPIO nodes
> (most often is present in PCI and GIC nodes).
> and nobody seems fixing it. So, if we are going to move this direction it's reasonable to get clarification to be sure.
> 
> And there is no "never" here - #address-cells always can be added if really required.


OK - as a GPIO node, but as an interrupt-controller node, I was
looking at [1] and wondering if that was the precedence.

Yes, will be good to get direction from the DT maintainers on this
topic.

[1]
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/open-pic.txt

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

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

[Sekhar Nori]

On 19/11/20 6:58 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> Punting over to Rob and DT team's wisdom..
> 
> On 13:17-20201119, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 18/11/2020 17:12, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>>> 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?)?
>>>
>>
>> The main reason I commented - is hope to get some clarification from DT maintainers.
>> 90% of interrupt-controller nodes do not have #address-cells and I never seen in in GPIO nodes
>> (most often is present in PCI and GIC nodes).
>> and nobody seems fixing it. So, if we are going to move this direction it's reasonable to get clarification to be sure.
>>
>> And there is no "never" here - #address-cells always can be added if really required.
> 
> 
> OK - as a GPIO node, but as an interrupt-controller node, I was
> looking at [1] and wondering if that was the precedence.
> 
> Yes, will be good to get direction from the DT maintainers on this
> topic.

Shall I respin this series with 2/4 dropped while we wait for decision
on this?

#address-cells warnings on interrupt controller can perhaps be handled
all at once (there are many of those in existing DT anyway).

GPIO is basic support and holds up many other modules (like MMC/SD).

Thanks,
Sekhar

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

[Nishanth Menon]

On 09:45-20201123, Sekhar Nori wrote:
> >> The main reason I commented - is hope to get some clarification from DT maintainers.
> >> 90% of interrupt-controller nodes do not have #address-cells and I never seen in in GPIO nodes
> >> (most often is present in PCI and GIC nodes).
> >> and nobody seems fixing it. So, if we are going to move this direction it's reasonable to get clarification to be sure.
> >>
> >> And there is no "never" here - #address-cells always can be added if really required.
> > 
> > 
> > OK - as a GPIO node, but as an interrupt-controller node, I was
> > looking at [1] and wondering if that was the precedence.
> > 
> > Yes, will be good to get direction from the DT maintainers on this
> > topic.
> 
> Shall I respin this series with 2/4 dropped while we wait for decision
> on this?
> 
> #address-cells warnings on interrupt controller can perhaps be handled
> all at once (there are many of those in existing DT anyway).
> 
> GPIO is basic support and holds up many other modules (like MMC/SD).


There are'nt too many new patches in my queue that depends on GPIO, I'd
rather not introduce new warnings unless we are completely at a
stalemate. I'd rather use this opportunity to understand where what we
need to be doing.

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

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

[Sekhar Nori]

On 24/11/20 6:51 AM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> On 09:45-20201123, Sekhar Nori wrote:
>>>> The main reason I commented - is hope to get some clarification from DT maintainers.
>>>> 90% of interrupt-controller nodes do not have #address-cells and I never seen in in GPIO nodes
>>>> (most often is present in PCI and GIC nodes).
>>>> and nobody seems fixing it. So, if we are going to move this direction it's reasonable to get clarification to be sure.
>>>>
>>>> And there is no "never" here - #address-cells always can be added if really required.
>>>
>>>
>>> OK - as a GPIO node, but as an interrupt-controller node, I was
>>> looking at [1] and wondering if that was the precedence.
>>>
>>> Yes, will be good to get direction from the DT maintainers on this
>>> topic.
>>
>> Shall I respin this series with 2/4 dropped while we wait for decision
>> on this?
>>
>> #address-cells warnings on interrupt controller can perhaps be handled
>> all at once (there are many of those in existing DT anyway).
>>
>> GPIO is basic support and holds up many other modules (like MMC/SD).
> 
> 
> There are'nt too many new patches in my queue that depends on GPIO, I'd
> rather not introduce new warnings unless we are completely at a
> stalemate. I'd rather use this opportunity to understand where what we
> need to be doing.
GPIO was originally submitted as part of 8  patch series titled "[PATCH
0/8] Add support for UHS modes in TI's J721e and J7200 boards"

Rest of those patches need to be resubmitted after GPIO is accepted.

Can you apply patch 1/4 at least. Its fairly non-controversial. It will
help reduce patch backlog and fix some warnings too.

Thanks,
Sekhar

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

[Nishanth Menon]

On 09:46-20201124, Sekhar Nori wrote:
> On 24/11/20 6:51 AM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> > On 09:45-20201123, Sekhar Nori wrote:
> >>>> The main reason I commented - is hope to get some clarification from DT maintainers.
> >>>> 90% of interrupt-controller nodes do not have #address-cells and I never seen in in GPIO nodes
> >>>> (most often is present in PCI and GIC nodes).
> >>>> and nobody seems fixing it. So, if we are going to move this direction it's reasonable to get clarification to be sure.
> >>>>
> >>>> And there is no "never" here - #address-cells always can be added if really required.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> OK - as a GPIO node, but as an interrupt-controller node, I was
> >>> looking at [1] and wondering if that was the precedence.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, will be good to get direction from the DT maintainers on this
> >>> topic.
> >>
> >> Shall I respin this series with 2/4 dropped while we wait for decision
> >> on this?
> >>
> >> #address-cells warnings on interrupt controller can perhaps be handled
> >> all at once (there are many of those in existing DT anyway).
> >>
> >> GPIO is basic support and holds up many other modules (like MMC/SD).
> > 
> > 
> > There are'nt too many new patches in my queue that depends on GPIO, I'd
> > rather not introduce new warnings unless we are completely at a
> > stalemate. I'd rather use this opportunity to understand where what we
> > need to be doing.
> GPIO was originally submitted as part of 8  patch series titled "[PATCH
> 0/8] Add support for UHS modes in TI's J721e and J7200 boards"
> 
> Rest of those patches need to be resubmitted after GPIO is accepted.
> 
> Can you apply patch 1/4 at least. Its fairly non-controversial. It will
> help reduce patch backlog and fix some warnings too.

I see that Grygorii is suggesting 1,3,4 to be pulled in. can you repost
with just the required patches alone and pick up the reviewed-bys?

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

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

[Lokesh Vutla]

Hi Rob, Grygorii,

On 27/11/20 7:53 pm, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> On 09:46-20201124, Sekhar Nori wrote:
>> On 24/11/20 6:51 AM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>>> On 09:45-20201123, Sekhar Nori wrote:
>>>>>> The main reason I commented - is hope to get some clarification from DT maintainers.
>>>>>> 90% of interrupt-controller nodes do not have #address-cells and I never seen in in GPIO nodes
>>>>>> (most often is present in PCI and GIC nodes).
>>>>>> and nobody seems fixing it. So, if we are going to move this direction it's reasonable to get clarification to be sure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And there is no "never" here - #address-cells always can be added if really required.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> OK - as a GPIO node, but as an interrupt-controller node, I was
>>>>> looking at [1] and wondering if that was the precedence.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, will be good to get direction from the DT maintainers on this
>>>>> topic.
>>>>

Is there a conclusion on this topic?  Without adding address-cells for interrupt
controller we will be introducing new warning for all the new nodes we are adding.

Thanks and regards,
Lokesh

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

[Rob Herring]

On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 01:17:36PM +0200, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
> 
> 
> On 18/11/2020 17:12, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> > 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?)?
> > 
> 
> The main reason I commented - is hope to get some clarification from DT maintainers.
> 90% of interrupt-controller nodes do not have #address-cells and I never seen in in GPIO nodes
> (most often is present in PCI and GIC nodes).
> and nobody seems fixing it. So, if we are going to move this direction it's reasonable to get clarification to be sure.
> 
> And there is no "never" here - #address-cells always can be added if really required.

Once required, how does one figure that out? It's not obvious and 
requires booting. So we need something at build time. I'm okay with 
loosening the check as long as it warns when a interrupt parent phandle 
in an interrupt-map is missing '#address-cells'.

Now that I look back at the dtc change, I'm now confused why this 
check got applied. Both David and I wanted changes in regards to 
#address-cells. Either a separate check or part of interrupt-map checks. 
And the interrupt-map check never got applied. Andre?

Rob

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

[Andre Przywara]

On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 18:01:08 -0600
Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:

Hi,

> On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 01:17:36PM +0200, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On 18/11/2020 17:12, Nishanth Menon wrote:  
> > > 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?)?
> > >   
> > 
> > The main reason I commented - is hope to get some clarification from DT maintainers.
> > 90% of interrupt-controller nodes do not have #address-cells and I never seen in in GPIO nodes
> > (most often is present in PCI and GIC nodes).
> > and nobody seems fixing it. So, if we are going to move this direction it's reasonable to get clarification to be sure.
> > 
> > And there is no "never" here - #address-cells always can be added if really required.  
> 
> Once required, how does one figure that out? It's not obvious and 
> requires booting. So we need something at build time. I'm okay with 
> loosening the check as long as it warns when a interrupt parent phandle 
> in an interrupt-map is missing '#address-cells'.

So I think the rationale for requiring #address-cells is that the usage
of an interrupt in an interrupt-map can be totally disconnected from
the actual interrupt controller node. Typically the controller is in
the .dtsi, but an interrupt map could be anywhere, down in some
board .dts, or even some "common peripherals" intermediate .dts.
Possibly even in an overlay (I2C IRQ lines?).

So while not having this property works today, for your board, it might
surprisingly break for someone else. And those things are hard to find
(unless you know what you are looking for).
Been there, done that with the VExpress DTs, and that was the reason I
pushed for more tests.

On top of that is the standard's default value of "2" for
#address-cells, which Linux observes in this case. That leads to
somewhat surprising results when interpreting interrupt-maps without an
explicit #address-cells (cost me a few hours to figure out back then!)

So given the already somewhat complicated nature of interrupt-maps I
think it's comparably little to ask for explicit #address-cells
properties, even though you might not immediately benefit from it.

> Now that I look back at the dtc change, I'm now confused why this 
> check got applied. Both David and I wanted changes in regards to 
> #address-cells. Either a separate check or part of interrupt-map checks. 
> And the interrupt-map check never got applied. Andre?

Yeah, I somewhat dropped the ball on this, after some iterations and a
partial merge. Will put it on my list to revive this.

Cheers,
Andre.

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

[Nishanth Menon]

Andre, Rob,
On 16:38-20210126, Andre Przywara wrote:
> > Now that I look back at the dtc change, I'm now confused why this 
> > check got applied. Both David and I wanted changes in regards to 
> > #address-cells. Either a separate check or part of interrupt-map checks. 
> > And the interrupt-map check never got applied. Andre?
> 
> Yeah, I somewhat dropped the ball on this, after some iterations and a
> partial merge. Will put it on my list to revive this.


I was hoping we made some steps, but I did see [1] as well and it is
possible that I am missing some discussion, but it is starting to get
W=2 builds warnings noisy enough to start interfering with discovering
real problems as we keep adding new stuff in.. Just wondering...


[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/CAL_Jsq++DyiKG9smQGx9FAPDJnVrezcXNb0Y5uh-5_2GBzTQpQ@mail.gmail.com/
[2] https://pastebin.ubuntu.com/p/ns6hPCBxVM/

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

[PATCH v2 3/4] arm64: dts: ti: k3-j7200: Add gpio nodes

[Sekhar Nori]

From: Faiz Abbas <faiz_abbas@ti.com>

There are 4 instances of gpio modules in main domain:
	gpio0, gpio2, gpio4 and gpio6

Groups are created to provide protection between different processor
virtual worlds. Each of these modules I/O pins are muxed within the
group. Exactly one module can be selected to control the corresponding
pin by selecting it in the pad mux configuration registers.

This group pins out 69 lines (5 banks). Add DT modes for each module
instance in the main domain.

Similar to the gpio groups in main domain, there is one gpio group in
wakeup domain with 2 mdoules instances in it.

The gpio group pins out 73 pins (5 banks). Add DT nodes for each module
instance in the wakeup domain.

Signed-off-by: Faiz Abbas <faiz_abbas@ti.com>
Signed-off-by: Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@ti.com>
---
 arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j7200-main.dtsi     | 72 +++++++++++++++++++
 .../boot/dts/ti/k3-j7200-mcu-wakeup.dtsi      | 34 +++++++++
 2 files changed, 106 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j7200-main.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j7200-main.dtsi
index d07081b20aee..b313b895fd31 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j7200-main.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j7200-main.dtsi
@@ -449,4 +449,76 @@
 			dr_mode = "otg";
 		};
 	};
+
+	main_gpio0: gpio@600000 {
+		compatible = "ti,j721e-gpio", "ti,keystone-gpio";
+		reg = <0x00 0x00600000 0x00 0x100>;
+		gpio-controller;
+		#gpio-cells = <2>;
+		interrupt-parent = <&main_gpio_intr>;
+		interrupts = <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>,
+			     <149>;
+		interrupt-controller;
+		#interrupt-cells = <2>;
+		#address-cells = <0>;
+		ti,ngpio = <69>;
+		ti,davinci-gpio-unbanked = <0>;
+		power-domains = <&k3_pds 105 TI_SCI_PD_EXCLUSIVE>;
+		clocks = <&k3_clks 105 0>;
+		clock-names = "gpio";
+	};
+
+	main_gpio2: gpio@610000 {
+		compatible = "ti,j721e-gpio", "ti,keystone-gpio";
+		reg = <0x00 0x00610000 0x00 0x100>;
+		gpio-controller;
+		#gpio-cells = <2>;
+		interrupt-parent = <&main_gpio_intr>;
+		interrupts = <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>,
+			     <158>;
+		interrupt-controller;
+		#interrupt-cells = <2>;
+		#address-cells = <0>;
+		ti,ngpio = <69>;
+		ti,davinci-gpio-unbanked = <0>;
+		power-domains = <&k3_pds 107 TI_SCI_PD_EXCLUSIVE>;
+		clocks = <&k3_clks 107 0>;
+		clock-names = "gpio";
+	};
+
+	main_gpio4: gpio@620000 {
+		compatible = "ti,j721e-gpio", "ti,keystone-gpio";
+		reg = <0x00 0x00620000 0x00 0x100>;
+		gpio-controller;
+		#gpio-cells = <2>;
+		interrupt-parent = <&main_gpio_intr>;
+		interrupts = <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>,
+			     <167>;
+		interrupt-controller;
+		#interrupt-cells = <2>;
+		#address-cells = <0>;
+		ti,ngpio = <69>;
+		ti,davinci-gpio-unbanked = <0>;
+		power-domains = <&k3_pds 109 TI_SCI_PD_EXCLUSIVE>;
+		clocks = <&k3_clks 109 0>;
+		clock-names = "gpio";
+	};
+
+	main_gpio6: gpio@630000 {
+		compatible = "ti,j721e-gpio", "ti,keystone-gpio";
+		reg = <0x00 0x00630000 0x00 0x100>;
+		gpio-controller;
+		#gpio-cells = <2>;
+		interrupt-parent = <&main_gpio_intr>;
+		interrupts = <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>,
+			     <176>;
+		interrupt-controller;
+		#interrupt-cells = <2>;
+		#address-cells = <0>;
+		ti,ngpio = <69>;
+		ti,davinci-gpio-unbanked = <0>;
+		power-domains = <&k3_pds 111 TI_SCI_PD_EXCLUSIVE>;
+		clocks = <&k3_clks 111 0>;
+		clock-names = "gpio";
+	};
 };
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j7200-mcu-wakeup.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j7200-mcu-wakeup.dtsi
index 4801876bd107..a09e2157d80f 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j7200-mcu-wakeup.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j7200-mcu-wakeup.dtsi
@@ -108,6 +108,40 @@
 		ti,interrupt-ranges = <16 960 16>;
 	};
 
+	wkup_gpio0: gpio@42110000 {
+		compatible = "ti,j721e-gpio", "ti,keystone-gpio";
+		reg = <0x00 0x42110000 0x00 0x100>;
+		gpio-controller;
+		#gpio-cells = <2>;
+		interrupt-parent = <&wkup_gpio_intr>;
+		interrupts = <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>;
+		interrupt-controller;
+		#interrupt-cells = <2>;
+		#address-cells = <0>;
+		ti,ngpio = <73>;
+		ti,davinci-gpio-unbanked = <0>;
+		power-domains = <&k3_pds 113 TI_SCI_PD_EXCLUSIVE>;
+		clocks = <&k3_clks 113 0>;
+		clock-names = "gpio";
+	};
+
+	wkup_gpio1: gpio@42100000 {
+		compatible = "ti,j721e-gpio", "ti,keystone-gpio";
+		reg = <0x00 0x42100000 0x00 0x100>;
+		gpio-controller;
+		#gpio-cells = <2>;
+		interrupt-parent = <&wkup_gpio_intr>;
+		interrupts = <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>;
+		interrupt-controller;
+		#interrupt-cells = <2>;
+		#address-cells = <0>;
+		ti,ngpio = <73>;
+		ti,davinci-gpio-unbanked = <0>;
+		power-domains = <&k3_pds 114 TI_SCI_PD_EXCLUSIVE>;
+		clocks = <&k3_clks 114 0>;
+		clock-names = "gpio";
+	};
+
 	mcu_navss: bus@28380000 {
 		compatible = "simple-mfd";
 		#address-cells = <2>;
-- 
2.17.1

[PATCH v2 4/4] arm64: dts: ti: k3-j7200-common-proc-board: Disable unused gpio modules

[Sekhar Nori]

From: Faiz Abbas <faiz_abbas@ti.com>

There are 6 gpio instances inside SoC with 2 groups as show below:
	Group one: wkup_gpio0, wkup_gpio1
	Group two: main_gpio0, main_gpio2, main_gpio4, main_gpio6

Only one instance from each group can be used at a time. So use main_gpio0
and wkup_gpio0 in current linux context and disable the rest of the nodes.

Signed-off-by: Faiz Abbas <faiz_abbas@ti.com>
Signed-off-by: Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@ti.com>
---
 .../boot/dts/ti/k3-j7200-common-proc-board.dts   | 16 ++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j7200-common-proc-board.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j7200-common-proc-board.dts
index ef03e7636b66..0bc4170225d5 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j7200-common-proc-board.dts
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j7200-common-proc-board.dts
@@ -127,6 +127,22 @@
 	status = "disabled";
 };
 
+&main_gpio2 {
+	status = "disabled";
+};
+
+&main_gpio4 {
+	status = "disabled";
+};
+
+&main_gpio6 {
+	status = "disabled";
+};
+
+&wkup_gpio1 {
+	status = "disabled";
+};
+
 &mcu_cpsw {
 	pinctrl-names = "default";
 	pinctrl-0 = <&mcu_cpsw_pins_default &mcu_mdio_pins_default>;
-- 
2.17.1

Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] arm64: dts: ti: J7200 GPIO support and warning fixes

[Grygorii Strashko]

On 17/11/2020 18:19, Sekhar Nori wrote:
> These patches add gpio support for TI's J7200 platform. The first
> two patches fix existing warnings in preparation for adding GPIO
> support.
> 
> Changes in v2:
> - Add patches fixing existing warnings so GPIO support does not
>    end up adding more warnings
> - Addressed Nishanth's comments on GPIO patches
>    - merge patches adding main and wakeup domain GPIOs into single patch
>    - fix commit description going over 75 chars
>    - fix W=2 warnings about lack of #address-cells in GPIO nodes


> 
> Faiz Abbas (2):
>    arm64: dts: ti: k3-j7200: Add gpio nodes
>    arm64: dts: ti: k3-j7200-common-proc-board: Disable unused gpio
>      modules
> 
> Sekhar Nori (2):
>    arm64: dts: ti: k3: squelch warning about lack of #interrupt-cells
>    arm64: dts: ti: k3: squelch warnings regarding no #address-cells for
>      interrupt-controller
> 
>   arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am65-main.dtsi      |  6 ++
>   arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am65-wakeup.dtsi    |  2 +
>   .../arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am654-base-board.dts |  1 +
>   .../dts/ti/k3-j7200-common-proc-board.dts     | 16 ++++
>   arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j7200-main.dtsi     | 75 +++++++++++++++++++
>   .../boot/dts/ti/k3-j7200-mcu-wakeup.dtsi      | 35 +++++++++
>   .../dts/ti/k3-j721e-common-proc-board.dts     |  1 +
>   arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e-main.dtsi     | 12 +++
>   .../boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e-mcu-wakeup.dtsi      |  3 +
>   9 files changed, 151 insertions(+)
> 

For patches 1,3,4
Reviewed-by: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com>
-- 
Best regards,
grygorii