On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 5:01 AM Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 at 18:20, Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > It's triggered from WARNING(unique_unit_address, ...), because it > calls static void check_unique_unit_address_common() function with > disable_check=false. I guess we should interpret that this way: the > warning makes sense in regular case, when having the same unit address > for two nodes is wrong. So the warning is reasonable, it's just not > relevant in this particular case. What can be done: > > 1. We can introduce some specific property to mark nodes with > duplicated address as intentional. check_unique_unit_address_common() > can be extended then to omit checking the nodes if that property is > present. > 2. We can just ignore that warning in this particular case (and > similar cases). > 3. We can add some disambiguation note to that warning message, like > "if it's intentional -- please ignore this message" > > I'm all for option (3), as it's the easiest one, and still reasonable. > Rob, what do you think? Can we just ignore that warning in further > versions of this patch series? Just change the dtc flags to '-Wno-unique_unit_address -Wunique_unit_address_if_enabled' for both examples and dtbs. Rob
