On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 10:49 AM Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 8:44 AM Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 3 Feb 2021 15:15:19 +0100 > > Michal Simek <michal.simek@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On 2/3/21 3:12 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 1:01 AM Michal Simek <michal.simek@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On 2/1/21 6:41 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > > > >>> On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 8:27 AM Michal Simek <michal.simek@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> The commit 3eb619b2f7d8 ("scripts/dtc: Update to upstream version > > > >>>> v1.6.0-11-g9d7888cbf19c") updated dtc version which also contained DTC > > > >>>> commit > > > >>>> "81e0919a3e21 checks: Add interrupt provider test" > > > >>>> where reasons for this checking are mentioned as > > > >>>> "A missing #address-cells property is less critical, but creates > > > >>>> ambiguities when used in interrupt-map properties, so warn about this as > > > >>>> well now." > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Add address-cells property to gic and gpio nodes to get rid of this warning. > > > >>>> The similar change has been done for ZynqMP too. > > > >>> > > > >>> FYI, we're going to make this check dependent on having an > > > >>> interrupt-map property. So adding these isn't necessary. > > > >> > > > >> Good to know. Is there going to be report if interrupt-map doesn't > > > >> exist? Which can end up with reverting these changes? > > > > > > > > You mean a warning if '#address-cells' is present and interrupt-map is > > > > not? No, that would cause lots of warnings. > > > > > > yep. > > > > Why would we do that? That sounds dangerous and would be broken if the > > IRQ controller is in a generic .dtsi (as it usually is), but the > > interrupt map is only in *some* of the board .dts files. > > > > What is the problem of just putting #address-cells = <0>; in the > > IRQ controller node, after checking that there currently no interrupt > > maps in use and no IRQ children? And be safe for good? That's 16 bytes > > in the DTB, IIUC. > > Because I don't think we need a bunch of warning fix patches to add > these everywhere. Also, the need for #address-cells pretty much makes > no sense on any modern system. It is a relic from days when the bus > (address) topology and interrupt topology were related. > > > Because otherwise we have that lovely ambiguity between the > > implicit default #address-cells = 2; and the assumed default of 0. > > > > And that's why I think we also cannot *automatically* add an #ac = <0>; > > property, because that would change behaviour. > > I'd rather try to limit where we assume the default of 2. My guess is > that's only some combination of old PowerPC and/or Sparc and no FDT > based DT. Actually, after reviewing of_irq_parse_raw() again, I think you're mixing the 2 different #address-cells involved. Let's review which #*-cells applies to parts of interrupt-map: interrupt-map = <[ac current node or parent] [ic current node] [parent intc phandle] [ac parent intc] [ic parent intc]>; For [ac current node or parent], we start in the 'interrupt-map' node (because it's the interrupt parent). From there, we walk up the tree to find #address-cells. Worst case is we find none and take the default of 2. First, dtc has pretty much always made no root #address-cells a warning. Second, Linux has notion of a default and that varies by arch and isn't used here. Only Sparc defaults to 2 (see of_private.h) which means we should never hit the default on PowerPC or Arm (or anything else). The #address-cells the fix here addresses is the [parent intc phandle]'s for [ac parent intc] cells. This default is 0 (see newaddrsize in of_irq_parse_raw()). So really, we only need to be checking for #address-cells in nodes with interrupt-map. Rob