On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 02:52:57PM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 11/10/20 2:48 PM, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 02:40:43PM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> >> On 11/10/20 2:37 PM, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 07:31:11PM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> >>>> Provide a default compatible string which is based on the 58522 SRAB
> >>>> compatible, this allows us to have sane defaults and silences the
> >>>> following warnings:
> >>>>
> >>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm958522er.dt.yaml:
> >>>> ethernet-switch@36000: compatible: 'oneOf' conditional failed,
> >>>> one
> >>>> must be fixed:
> >>>> ['brcm,bcm5301x-srab'] is too short
> >>>> 'brcm,bcm5325' was expected
> >>>> 'brcm,bcm53115' was expected
> >>>> 'brcm,bcm53125' was expected
> >>>> 'brcm,bcm53128' was expected
> >>>> 'brcm,bcm5365' was expected
> >>>> 'brcm,bcm5395' was expected
> >>>> 'brcm,bcm5389' was expected
> >>>> 'brcm,bcm5397' was expected
> >>>> 'brcm,bcm5398' was expected
> >>>> 'brcm,bcm11360-srab' was expected
> >>>> 'brcm,bcm5301x-srab' is not one of ['brcm,bcm53010-srab',
> >>>> 'brcm,bcm53011-srab', 'brcm,bcm53012-srab', 'brcm,bcm53018-srab',
> >>>> 'brcm,bcm53019-srab']
> >>>> 'brcm,bcm5301x-srab' is not one of ['brcm,bcm11404-srab',
> >>>> 'brcm,bcm11407-srab', 'brcm,bcm11409-srab', 'brcm,bcm58310-srab',
> >>>> 'brcm,bcm58311-srab', 'brcm,bcm58313-srab']
> >>>> 'brcm,bcm5301x-srab' is not one of ['brcm,bcm58522-srab',
> >>>> 'brcm,bcm58523-srab', 'brcm,bcm58525-srab', 'brcm,bcm58622-srab',
> >>>> 'brcm,bcm58623-srab', 'brcm,bcm58625-srab', 'brcm,bcm88312-srab']
> >>>> 'brcm,bcm5301x-srab' is not one of ['brcm,bcm3384-switch',
> >>>> 'brcm,bcm6328-switch', 'brcm,bcm6368-switch']
> >>>> From schema:
> >>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/b53.yaml
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm-nsp.dtsi | 2 +-
> >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm-nsp.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm-nsp.dtsi
> >>>> index 09fd7e55c069..8453865d1439 100644
> >>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm-nsp.dtsi
> >>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm-nsp.dtsi
> >>>> @@ -386,7 +386,7 @@ ccbtimer1: timer@35000 {
> >>>> };
> >>>>
> >>>> srab: ethernet-switch@36000 {
> >>>> - compatible = "brcm,nsp-srab";
> >>>> + compatible = "brcm,bcm58522-srab", "brcm,nsp-srab";
> >>>> reg = <0x36000 0x1000>,
> >>>> <0x3f308 0x8>,
> >>>> <0x3f410 0xc>;
> >>>> --
> >>>> 2.25.1
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I am not getting this.
> >>> The line:
> >>> #include "bcm-nsp.dtsi"
> >>>
> >>> can be found in:
> >>>
> >>> arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm988312hr.dts
> >>> arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm958625hr.dts
> >>> arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm958622hr.dts
> >>> arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm958625k.dts
> >>> arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm958522er.dts
> >>> arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm958525er.dts
> >>> arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm958623hr.dts
> >>> arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm958525xmc.dts
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The pattern for the other DTS files that include this seems to be to
> >>> overwrite the compatible locally in bcm958522er.dts, like this:
> >>>
> >>> &srab {
> >>> compatible = "brcm,bcm58522-srab", "brcm,nsp-srab";
> >>> };
> >>>
> >>> Is there a reason why you are choosing to put an SoC specific compatible
> >>> in the common bcm-nsp.dtsi?
> >>
> >> It is necessary to silence the warnings provided in the commit message
> >> even when the srab node is disabled, since the dt_binding_check rule
> >> will check all of the nodes matching the pattern. If there is a better
> >> way to do this, I would gladly do it differently.
> >> --
> >> Florian
> >
> > I am still not getting it. The exact 3 lines from above will not change
> > the "status" property from "disabled" to "okay", so I don't understand
> > why it matters whether it's enabled or not. The dt_binding_check error
> > isn't in the DTSI, it's in bcm958522er.dts. All that needs to be done is
> > that the bcm958522er.dts needs to override the compatible from the DTSI
> > and only the compatible, I believe. With no occurrence of an incomplete
> > list of compatibles in any final DTS, the dt_binding_check should not
> > complain about that single occurrence in the DTSI as far as I know (and
> > I did not test this).
>
> There is not a switch being enabled in
> arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm958522er.dts, so sure, I could add the 3 lines you
> quote above and that would silence the warning, but that does not scale
> at all across DTS files including bcm5301x.dtsi for instance, it sort of
> does for those including bcm-nsp.dtsi.
> --
> Florian
I see only bcm47081.dtsi and bcm4708.dtsi to include bcm5301x.dtsi, and
you did point out in the other email that the BCM4708* SoCs always
contain a BCM53010 switch, so that would make the other patch not wrong.
Either way, it's up to you and Rafal.
