From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752101AbcD3Usn (ORCPT ); Sat, 30 Apr 2016 16:48:43 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.136]:49381 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750775AbcD3Usl (ORCPT ); Sat, 30 Apr 2016 16:48:41 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1457104420-18350-1-git-send-email-robh@kernel.org> From: Rob Herring Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2016 15:48:18 -0500 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] scripts/dtc: Update to upstream version 53bf130b1cdd To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 3:51 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Rob, > > On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 9:00 AM, Rob Herring wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 5:27 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >>> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Rob Herring wrote: >>>> Sync to upstream dtc commit 53bf130b1cdd ("libfdt: simplify >>>> fdt_node_check_compatible()"). This adds the following commits from >>>> upstream: >>>> >>>> 53bf130 libfdt: simplify fdt_node_check_compatible() >>>> c9d9121 Warn on node name unit-address presence/absence mismatch >>>> 2e53f9d Catch unsigned 32bit overflow when parsing flattened device tree offsets >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Rob Herring >>>> --- >>>> As usual, this is just an automated copy of upstream dtc into the kernel >>>> tree. The changeset is small enough that I have left it here. >>>> >>>> The main reason for this sync is to pick-up the new unit-address >>>> warnings. >>> >>> I gave this a try. Obviously it finds many abuses that should be fixed. >>> >>> However, I'm wondering about the following, where the unit-address is just >>> used to distinguish between multiple instances: >>> >>> Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): Node /cache-controller@0 has a unit >>> name, but no reg property >>> compatible = "cache"; >> >> Just add a reg property. The values should probably match the MPIDR in >> some way (e.g. 0 and 100). > > Is it correct to move the cache-controller nodes under the cpus node? IIRC, the ePAPR^W DTSpec says that is valid. > Else the reg properties don't match #address/size-cells? If there's no mmio access then yes, I think under /cpus makes sense. The ARM /cpus code may throw a warning on this, but we should quiet it down. Rob