Hi Nishanth, On 12/11/20 10:09 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote: > On 00:41-20201103, Faiz Abbas wrote: >> There are 4 instances of gpio modules in main domain: >> gpio0, gpio2, gpio4 and gpio6 >> >> Groups are created to provide protection between different processor virtual >> worlds. Each of these modules I/O pins are muxed within the group. Exactly >> one module can be selected to control the corresponding pin by selecting it >> in the pad mux configuration registers. > Could you check with checkpatch --strict please? > > I see: > > WARNING: Possible unwrapped commit description (prefer a maximum 75 chars per line) > >> >> This group pins out 69 lines (5 banks). >> >> Add DT modes for each module instance in the main domain. >> >> Signed-off-by: Faiz Abbas <faiz_abbas@xxxxxx> >> --- >> arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j7200-main.dtsi | 68 +++++++++++++++++++++++ > > dtbs_check: we added: > arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j7200-main.dtsi: /bus@100000/gpio@600000: Missing #address-cells in interrupt provider > arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j7200-main.dtsi: /bus@100000/gpio@610000: Missing #address-cells in interrupt provider > arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j7200-main.dtsi: /bus@100000/gpio@620000: Missing #address-cells in interrupt provider > arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j7200-main.dtsi: /bus@100000/gpio@630000: Missing #address-cells in interrupt provider Hmm, running dtbs_check, I did not really see this. These are all the warnings I see for TI platforms: https://pastebin.ubuntu.com/p/m2my62mjQq/ The tree I am testing is linux-next of 12th Nov + these three patches applied. Also, #address-cells for interrupt provider being compulsory does not make full sense to me. Nothing in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/interrupts.txt or Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-davinci.txt suggests that as well. Existing GPIO nodes for AM654 or J721E does not have #address-cells as well. Adding Grygorii as well, in case he knows more about this. Thanks, Sekhar
