On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Masahiro Yamada
<yamada.masahiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
>
> 2017-10-13 22:49 GMT+09:00 Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>> On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 02:02:58PM +0900, Keiji Hayashibara wrote:
>>> Add uniphier-efuse dt-bindings documentation.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Keiji Hayashibara <hayashibara.keiji@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> .../devicetree/bindings/nvmem/uniphier-efuse.txt | 49 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> 1 file changed, 49 insertions(+)
>>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/uniphier-efuse.txt
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/uniphier-efuse.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/uniphier-efuse.txt
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 0000000..1a394e5
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/uniphier-efuse.txt
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
>>> += UniPhier eFuse device tree bindings =
>>> +
>>> +This UniPhier eFuse must be under soc-glue.
>>> +
>>> +Required properties:
>>> +- compatible: should be "socionext,uniphier-efuse"
>>> +- reg: should contain the register location and length
>>> +
>>> += Data cells =
>>> +Are child nodes of efuse, bindings of which as described in
>>> +bindings/nvmem/nvmem.txt
>>> +
>>> +Example:
>>> +
>>> + soc-glue@5f900000 {
>>> + compatible = "socionext,uniphier-ld20-soc-glue-debug",
>>> + "simple-mfd";
>>> + #address-cells = <1>;
>>> + #size-cells = <1>;
>>> + ranges = <0x0 0x5f900000 0x2000>;
>>> +
>>> + efuse@100 {
>>> + compatible = "socionext,uniphier-efuse";
>>> + reg = <0x100 0x28>;
>>> + };
>>> +
>>> + efuse@200 {
>>> + compatible = "socionext,uniphier-efuse";
>>> + reg = <0x200 0x68>;
>>> + #address-cells = <1>;
>>> + #size-cells = <1>;
>>> +
>>> + /* Data cells */
>>> + usb_mon: usb_mon {
>>
>> Don't use '_' and needs a unit-address. Build your dtb with W=2 option
>> and you'll get these warnings.
>
>
> Do you mean "usb_mon: usb-mon@54" ?
Yes.
> DT files in kernel sprinkle tons of warnings even with W=1.
>
> I always eliminate W=1, so I agree with "@54".
>
> I do not care W=2 much.
> If you see arch/arm64/boot/dts/socionext/uniphier-ld20.dtsi,
> yeah, I generally use '-' for node names, but I see some exceptions.
>
> You admitted -Wnode_name_chars_strict is "subjective"
> in commit 8654cb8d0371.
Yes, meaning fixing existing cases is questionable and I'd put doing
so at a lower priority. I didn't mean it is up to each person to
decide whether they like to use '_' or not.
> If you are unhappy about it, we can fix,
> but I am not sure how picky we should be.
Let me put it clearly: Don't add new warnings with W=2.
>
>
>>> + reg = <0x54 0xc>;
>>
>> Without ranges above, this is address 5f900054. I think you want
>> 5f900254. You need:
>>
>> ranges = <0x0 0x200 0x68>;
>
>
> I do not get it.
>
> The parent is an efuse, not any kind of bus.
>
> <0x54, 0c> just represents the offset and size
> within the efuse device, so this is not mapped in
> CPU address view.
> The is apparent from of_nvmem_cell_get().
>
> Some efuse devices _may_ be directly accessed
> as MMIO from CPU, but it is abstracted under an efuse driver.
>
> I believe missing "ranges" is correct.
Okay, you're right. If those are not memory mapped then it is fine.
Rob
--
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
