Hi,
On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 1:55 PM Stephen Boyd <swboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Quoting Douglas Anderson (2019-12-12 11:35:43)
> > Running `make dtbs_check` yells:
> >
> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-idp.dt.yaml: timer@17c20000: #size-cells:0:0: 1 was expected
> >
> > It appears that someone was trying to assert the fact that sub-nodes
> > describing frames would never have a size that's more than 32-bits
> > big. That's certainly true in the case of sc7180.
> >
> > I guess this is a hint that it's time to do the thing that nobody
> > seems to do but that "writing-bindings.txt" says we should all do.
> > Specifically it says: "DO use non-empty 'ranges' to limit the size of
> > child buses/devices". That means we should probably limit the
>
> It got cut off here. I'm waiting to find out what it is!!
I was going to say that I should use ranges to limit the address cells
in addition to the size cells, but then I think I must have got
distracted and forgot to finish my
> > I believe that this patch is the way to do it and there should be no
> > bad side effects here. I believe that since we're far enough down
> > (not trying to describe an actual device, just some sub-pieces) that
> > this won't cause us to run into the problems that caused us to
> > increase the soc-level #address-cells and #size-cells to 2 in sdm845
> > in commit bede7d2dc8f3 ("arm64: dts: qcom: sdm845: Increase address
> > and size cells for soc").
> >
> > I can at least confirm that "arch_mem_timer" seems to keep getting
> > interrupts in "/proc/interrupts" after this change.
> >
> > Fixes: 90db71e48070 ("arm64: dts: sc7180: Add minimal dts/dtsi files for SC7180 soc")
> > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
>
> This pattern exists in most of the qcom dts files. Can you fix all the
> arm,armv7-timer-mem nodes. Maybe the binding has the same problem too in
> the example.
Yeah. I'm a little scared to go and do this for every qcom device
tree file since I have no good way to test them, but I suppose I can
give it a shot. I was kinda thinking that, in general, it would make
sense for folks to tackle one SoC at a time and make that SoC clean
and test it.
In any case, your idea about updating the example seemed wise to me,
so I sent out:
https://lore.kernel.org/r/20191216220512.1.I7dbd712cfe0bdf7b53d9ef9791072b7e9c6d3c33@changeid
I'll put this patch on hold until Rob gives his thoughts on that one
so we can really make sure we're supposed to be using ranges in this
way.
-Doug
