Hi Rob,
On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 9:00 AM, Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 5:27 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> 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?
Else the reg properties don't match #address/size-cells?
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
