On 14/11/20 12:10 AM, Nishanth Menon wrote: > On 23:59-20201113, Sekhar Nori wrote: > [..] >>> 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/ > > Here is the full list of checks I ran through with kernel_patch_verify > (docker) > https://pastebin.ubuntu.com/p/tcnWw89CMD/ > > See lines 128 onwards for this series. kernel_patch_verify does'nt > complain on existing warnings, but just prints when there are additional > ones added in. Also make sure we have the right dtc as well > dtc 1.6.0 and dt_schema 2020.8.1 was used. I was using the latest schema from master. But I changed to 2020.08.1 also, and still don't see the warning. $ dt-doc-validate --version 2020.12.dev1+gab5a73fcef26 I dont have a system-wide dtc installed. One in kernel tree is updated. $ scripts/dtc/dtc --version Version: DTC 1.6.0-gcbca977e Looking at your logs, it looks like you have more patches than just this applied. I wonder if thats making a difference. Can you check with just these patches applied to linux-next or share your tree which includes other patches? In your logs, you have such error for other interrupt controller nodes as well. For example: arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j7200-main.dtsi: /bus@100000/bus@30000000/interrupt-controller1: Missing #address-cells in interrupt provider Which I don't see in my logs. My guess is some other patch(es) in your patch stack either uncovers this warning or causes it. > >> >> 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. > > > Yes - we need to have this conversation in the community :) I had > tagged this internally already during the 5.10 merge cycle that we > need to clean up the #address-cells warning and in some cases, maybe > the bindings are probably not accurate to attempt an enforcement. > I'd really like a conclusion on the topic as I recollect Lokesh and > Grygorii had a debate internally, but reached no conclusion, lets get > the wisdom of the community to help us here. Adding Lokesh to cc as well. Thanks, Sekhar
