On Fri, Oct 08, 2021 at 10:08:46PM +0200, Rafał Miłecki wrote: > On 08.10.2021 21:48, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Fri, 08 Oct 2021 17:39:38 +0200, Rafał Miłecki wrote: > > > From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > This reverts commit 2ae80900f239484069569380e1fc4340fd6e0089. > > > > > > My rework was unneeded & wrong. It replaced a clear & correct "reg" > > > property usage with a custom "offset" one. > > > > > > Back then I didn't understand how to properly handle CRU block binding. > > > I heard / read about syscon and tried to use it in a totally invalid > > > way. That change also missed Rob's review (obviously). > > > > > > Northstar's pin controller is a simple consistent hardware block that > > > can be cleanly mapped using a 0x24 long reg space. > > > > > > Since the rework commit there wasn't any follow up modifying in-kernel > > > DTS files to use the new binding. Broadcom also isn't known to use that > > > bugged binding. There is close to zero chance this revert may actually > > > cause problems / regressions. > > > > > > This commit is a simple revert. Example binding may (should) be updated > > > / cleaned up but that can be handled separately. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > V2: Update brcm,cru.yaml to avoid new yamllint warnings/errors > > > --- > > > .../devicetree/bindings/mfd/brcm,cru.yaml | 11 +++++---- > > > .../bindings/pinctrl/brcm,ns-pinmux.yaml | 23 +++++++++++-------- > > > 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > > > > > > My bot found errors running 'make DT_CHECKER_FLAGS=-m dt_binding_check' > > on your patch (DT_CHECKER_FLAGS is new in v5.13): > > > > yamllint warnings/errors: > > > > dtschema/dtc warnings/errors: > > /builds/robherring/linux-dt-review/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/brcm,ns-pinmux.example.dt.yaml: cru@1800c100: $nodename:0: 'cru@1800c100' does not match '^([a-z][a-z0-9\\-]+-bus|bus|soc|axi|ahb|apb)(@[0-9a-f]+)?$' > > From schema: /usr/local/lib/python3.8/dist-packages/dtschema/schemas/simple-bus.yaml > > It's warning we already have and not something introduced by this > revert. We don't allow warnings, so you're saying this one was warning before? > As a revert this commit should introduce as little non-revert changes > as possible. I'm planning to improve that example later in a separated > commit. You have to fix the warning as part of this series. > > Can you take a look at this commit despite your bot warning, please? If 'CRU' is a hardware block, then I don't think most of the revert is right to use 'simple-bus'. If you want to just replace 'offset' with 'reg', then I'd be happy to see that. I've been pushing child nodes of syscons in that direction. Rob
