On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 12:59 PM Michal Simek <michal.simek@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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? 1:1 is my preference, but I'm not going to enforce either way. Rob
