Hi Rob, On 1/25/21 8:47 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 6:16 PM Suman Anna <s-anna@xxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Hi Rob, >> >> On 1/25/21 6:04 PM, Rob Herring wrote: >>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 02:58:19PM -0600, Suman Anna wrote: >>>> The '#address-cells' property looks to be a required property for >>>> interrupt controller nodes as indicated by a warning message seen >>>> when building dtbs with W=2. Adding the property to the PRUSS INTC >>>> dts nodes though fails the dtbs_check. Add this property to the >>>> PRUSS INTC binding to make it compliant with both dtbs_check and >>>> building dtbs. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Suman Anna <s-anna@xxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> Hi Rob, >>>> >>>> This patch is also part of our effort to get rid of the warnings seen >>>> around interrupt providers on TI K3 dtbs [1]. I needed this in the PRUSS >>>> INTC bindings to not get a warning with dtbs_check while also ensuring >>>> no warnings while building dtbs with W=2. >>>> >>>> I would have expected the '#address-cells' requirement to be inherited >>>> automatically. And looking through the schema files, I actually do not >>>> see the interrupt-controller.yaml included automatically anywhere. You >>>> had asked us to drop the inclusion in this binding in our first version >>>> with YAML [3]. Am I missing something, and how do we ensure that this >>>> is enforced automatically for everyone? >>> >>> interrupt-controller.yaml is applied to any node named >>> 'interrupt-controller'. More generally, if 'compatible' is not present, >>> then we look at $nodename for the default 'select'. In your case, you >>> didn't name the node appropriately. >> >> Thanks for the clarification. Yeah, I didn't add anything specifically, since >> the expectation is interrupt-controller. Should I be adding that to this binding? > > No, either interrupt-controller.yaml needs to learn a new node name or > your node names need to be fixed. I prefer the latter, but if you have > more than 1 and don't have a unit-address (and in turn a 'reg' prop) > we'd have to do the former. How are the interrupts controllers > accessed if there's no way to address them? The PRUSS INTC will always have a unit-address, so we won't have the issues with having to maintain unique names. All my examples already have the nodes in the form 'interrupt-controller@<addr>'. Anyway, I will drop this patch, and post a new patch adding the $nodename to the binding. > >> >>> >>> We can't check this in interrupt-controller.yaml because #address-cells >>> is not always 0. GICv3 is one notable exception. >>> >>>> >>>> regards >>>> Suman >>>> >>>> [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-arm-kernel/patch/20210115083003.27387-1-lokeshvutla@xxxxxx/ >>> >>> I've commented on this thread now in regards to #address-cells. >> >> I suppose I still need this patch to be defined to unblock the ICSSG nodes >> getting accepted by our dts maintainer. Care to give your Reviewed-by for the >> change? Or I can spin a v2 with $nodename added as well if that's needed too. > > No, I don't think you have to add #address-cells. We need to fix the > warning in dtc. Thank you for clarifying this. regards Suman
