On 5/19/21 7:08 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 10:14:14AM -0500, Suman Anna wrote: >> On 5/18/21 12:20 PM, Suman Anna wrote: >>> Convert the current OMAP Mailbox binding from text format to YAML >>> format/DT schema, and delete the legacy text binding file. >>> >>> The new YAML binding conversion is an updated version compared to >>> the original. The descriptions for certain properties have been >>> improved to provide more clarity. Constraints are added to the >>> properties 'ti,mbox-num-users', 'ti,mbox-num-fifos' and 'interrupts'. >>> The 'ti,hwmods' is a legacy property and is retained only to reflect >>> the existing usage on some older OMAP2 and OMAP3 platforms. >>> >>> All the existing examples have also been updated to reflect the >>> latest dts nodes (ti,hwmods removed from OMAP4 and AM33xx examples, >>> and interrupts value updated for AM65x SoCs). >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Suman Anna <s-anna@xxxxxx> >>> --- >>> Hi, >>> >>> This patch does fix a number of dtbs_check warnings seen around OMAP Mailbox >>> nodes with the latest kernel. There are few left-over warnings when just >>> this patch is used on v5.13-rc1 or next-20210518. I have posted a separate >>> fix for a warning on TI K3 SoCs [1], and will be posting a separate cleanup >>> series for OMAP2+ SoCs. The dts patches can be picked up independently >>> of this patch. >> >> FYI, All the dtbs_check warnings will be gone with [1] and the OMAP2+ cleanup >> series [2]. > > Nice, though it is a moving target. :) Is that still true with the > undocumented compatible checks that's been added? [1] is acked, so will definitely get picked up for the next merge window. Should hit next sometime in the next couple of days. I didn't exactly understand your second comment, but no new compatibles were added. The existing nodes are already in compliance with the constraints I added (so that's strictly binding enforcements). These constraints are almost all on legacy SoCs, so these do not pose any issues. Most of the generated warnings stem from me adding a pattern for the child nodes in the binding, and [2] is mostly just renaming these node names. Tony, Do you have/foresee any concerns with the patches in [2]? regards Suman [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-arm-kernel/patch/20210514212016.3153-1-s-anna@xxxxxx/ [2] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-omap/list/?series=484489
