On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 2:23 PM Alexandre TORGUE
<alexandre.torgue@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 4/15/21 12:43 PM, Ahmad Fatoum wrote:
> > On 15.04.21 12:10, Alexandre Torgue wrote:
> >> Running "make dtbs_check W=1", some warnings are reported concerning
> >> DSI. This patch reorder DSI nodes to avoid:
> >>
> >> soc/dsi@5a000000: unnecessary #address-cells/#size-cells without
> >> "ranges" or child "reg" property
> >
> > This reverts parts of commit 9c32f980d9 ("ARM: dts: stm32: preset
> > stm32mp15x video #address- and #size-cells"):
> >
> > The cell count for address and size is defined by the binding and not
> > something a board would change. Avoid each board adding this
> > boilerplate by having the cell size specification in the SoC DTSI.
> >
> >
> > The DSI can have child nodes with a unit address (e.g. a panel) and ones
> > without (ports { } container). ports is described in the dtsi, panels are
> > described in the dts if available.
> >
> > Apparently, the checker is fine with
> > ports {
> > #address-cells = <1>;
> > #size-cells = <0>;
> > };
> >
> > I think my rationale for the patch above was sound, so I think the checker
> > taking offense at the DSI cells here should be considered a false positive.
>
> If it's a "false positive" warning then we need to find a way to not
> print it out. Else, it'll be difficult to distinguish which warnings are
> "normal" and which are not. This question could also be applied to patch[3].
>
> Arnd, Rob what is your feeling about this case ?
I don't have a strong opinion on this either way, but I would just
not apply this one for 5.13 in this case. Rob, Alexandre, please
let me know if I should apply the other patches before the
merge window, I usually don't mind taking bugfixes late before the
merge window, but I still want some level of confidence that they
are actually correct.
Ahmad, if you feel strongly about this particular issue, would you like
to suggest a patch for the checker?
Arnd
