On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 2:04 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 30/11/2021 18:43, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 13:13:21 +0200, Sam Protsenko wrote: > >> Add constants for choosing USIv2 configuration mode in device tree. > >> Those are further used in USI driver to figure out which value to write > >> into SW_CONF register. Also document USIv2 IP-core bindings. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> Changes in v2: > >> - Combined dt-bindings doc and dt-bindings header patches > >> - Added i2c node to example in bindings doc > >> - Added mentioning of shared internal circuits > >> - Added USI_V2_NONE value to bindings header > >> > >> .../bindings/soc/samsung/exynos-usi.yaml | 135 ++++++++++++++++++ > >> include/dt-bindings/soc/samsung,exynos-usi.h | 17 +++ > >> 2 files changed, 152 insertions(+) > >> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/samsung/exynos-usi.yaml > >> create mode 100644 include/dt-bindings/soc/samsung,exynos-usi.h > >> > > > > 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: > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/samsung/exynos-usi.example.dts:35.39-42.15: Warning (unique_unit_address): /example-0/usi@138200c0/serial@13820000: duplicate unit-address (also used in node /example-0/usi@138200c0/i2c@13820000) > > Rob, > > The checker complains about two nodes with same unit-address, even > though the node name is different. Does it mean that our idea of > embedding two children in USI and having enabled only one (used one) is > wrong? IIRC, we allow for this exact scenario, and there was a change in dtc for it. So I'm not sure why this triggered. Rob
