Hi Rob, On 09. 12. 20 19:34, Rob Herring wrote: > On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 09:48:04AM +0100, Michael Tretter wrote: >> On Thu, 03 Dec 2020 08:49:01 +0100, Michal Simek wrote: >>> On 02. 12. 20 10:05, Michael Tretter wrote: >>>> When running make dt_binding_check, the xlnx,vcu-settings binding >>>> triggers the following two warnings: >>>> >>>> 'additionalProperties' is a required property >>>> >>>> example-0: vcu@a0041000:reg:0: [0, 2684620800, 0, 4096] is too long >>>> >>>> Fix the binding and make the checker happy. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Michael Tretter <m.tretter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> The xlnx,vcu-settings binding was reviewed [0] before the bot started to >>>> run automated tests on the device tree bindings, but now produces some >>>> warnings. The original patch that introduces the binding is still in >>>> Michal's tree and I am not entirely sure how to handle it, but here is a >>>> patch. >>>> >>>> Michael >>>> >>>> [0] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20200429213659.GA9051@bogus/ >>>> --- >>>> .../bindings/soc/xilinx/xlnx,vcu-settings.yaml | 15 ++++++++++++--- >>>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/xilinx/xlnx,vcu-settings.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/xilinx/xlnx,vcu-settings.yaml >>>> index 378d0ced43c8..cb245f400287 100644 >>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/xilinx/xlnx,vcu-settings.yaml >>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/xilinx/xlnx,vcu-settings.yaml >>>> @@ -26,9 +26,18 @@ required: >>>> - compatible >>>> - reg >>>> >>>> +additionalProperties: false >>>> + >>>> examples: >>>> - | >>>> - xlnx_vcu: vcu@a0041000 { >>>> - compatible = "xlnx,vcu-settings", "syscon"; >>>> - reg = <0x0 0xa0041000 0x0 0x1000>; >>>> + fpga { >>>> + #address-cells = <2>; >>>> + #size-cells = <2>; >>>> + >>>> + xlnx_vcu: vcu@a0041000 { >>>> + compatible = "xlnx,vcu-settings", "syscon"; >>>> + reg = <0x0 0xa0041000 0x0 0x1000>; >>>> + }; >>> >>> IIRC we had been discussing this recently and Rob wanted to have just >>> 1/1 mapping here. >>> >>> Take a look at 0db958b689ca9. >> >> Thanks for the pointer. >> >> Rob: Is there some kind of rule, when to use a 1/1 mapping and when to add a >> bus with more cells? I still see several examples that add a bus with 2 cells. >> I assume that they more or less legacy, but I didn't find any discussion going >> beyond the commit description of 0db958b689ca9, which "just" fixes the >> warnings. >> >> I will send a v2, but I'd like to understand the rationale for having the 1/1 >> mapping first. > > Simplifies the example is all. > > This one is fine as-is. > > Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> I remember that we have been fixing that 2:2 mapping to 1:1 in past. And simplification in this case would be - reg = <0x0 0xa0041000 0x0 0x1000>; + reg = <0xa0041000 0x1000>; That's why I would like to know what we should be asking people to do. Or is it fine because it is the part of fpga node? Thanks, Michal
