On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 03:54:08AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> Having a 'bus-range' property for PCI bridges should not be required,
Hmm. Shouldn't it? I thought it was a required property, but I'm
having trouble interpreting the information in the PCI binding
document to confirm that.
> so remove the warning when missing. There was some confusion with the
> Linux kernel printing no property is present and the OS assigning the
> bus number.
>
> Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> checks.c | 5 ++---
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/checks.c b/checks.c
> index 5a6397fb4a8f..43d664aa4715 100644
> --- a/checks.c
> +++ b/checks.c
> @@ -787,10 +787,9 @@ static void check_pci_bridge(struct check *c, struct dt_info *dti, struct node *
> FAIL(c, dti, node, "incorrect #size-cells for PCI bridge");
>
> prop = get_property(node, "bus-range");
> - if (!prop) {
> - FAIL(c, dti, node, "missing bus-range for PCI bridge");
> + if (!prop)
> return;
> - }
> +
> if (prop->val.len != (sizeof(cell_t) * 2)) {
> FAIL_PROP(c, dti, node, prop, "value must be 2 cells");
> return;
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
