Hi Johan, Rob,
Am Donnerstag, 5. März 2020, 23:21:52 CET schrieb Johan Jonker:
> Goal was to reduce the error output of existing code a little bit,
> so that we can use it for the review of new patches.
> Some questions:
> As I don't have the hardware, where else is coreboot used?
> Is this a rk3288-veyron.dtsi problem only?
> ie. Is it a option to produce a patch serie v2 without veyron?
> Can someone help testing?
I believe that is more question for @Rob :
In the past we said that it would be ok to have "memory" nodes without
address, so "memory {}" instead of "memory@0 {}", simply because
bootloaders mess up sometimes.
Question now would be how to make the yaml bindings happy.
Thanks
Heiko
>
> Johan
>
> On 3/5/20 10:31 PM, Heiko Stuebner wrote:
> > Hi Johan,
> >
> > Am Mittwoch, 4. März 2020, 08:40:50 CET schrieb Johan Jonker:
> >> A test with the command below gives for example this error:
> >>
> >> arch/arm/boot/dts/rk3288-tinker.dt.yaml: /: memory:
> >> False schema does not allow
> >> {'device_type': ['memory'], 'reg': [[0, 0, 0, 2147483648]]}
> >>
> >> The memory nodes all have a reg property that requires '@' in
> >> the nodename. Fix this error by adding the missing '@0' to
> >> the involved memory nodenames.
> >>
> >> make ARCH=arm dtbs_check
> >> DT_SCHEMA_FILES=~/.local/lib/python3.5/site-packages/dtschema/
> >> schemas/root-node.yaml
> >
> > changes to memory nodes you sadly cannot do in such an automated fashion.
> > If you read the comment in rk3288-veyron.dtsi you'll see that a previous
> > similar iteration broke all of those machines as their coreboot doesn't
> > copy with memory@0 and would insert another memory node without @0
> >
> > In the past iteration the consensus then was that memory without @0
> > is also ok (as it isn't changeable anyway).
> >
>
> > As I don't really want to repeat that, I'd like actual hardware tests
> > before touching memory nodes.
>
> Any suggestion/feedback rapport welcome.
>
> >
> > Heiko
> >
> >
>
