On 16.01.2023 17:02, Bhupesh Sharma wrote: > > On 1/16/23 9:24 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote: >> >> >> On 16.01.2023 16:43, Bhupesh Sharma wrote: >>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 at 13:23, Krzysztof Kozlowski >>> <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 15/01/2023 22:33, Bhupesh Sharma wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 15 Jan 2023 at 20:57, Krzysztof Kozlowski >>>>> <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On 13/01/2023 21:10, Bhupesh Sharma wrote: >>>>>>> Fix the following '#address-cells' & '#size-cells' related >>>>>>> dt-binding error: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> $ make dtbs_check >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From schema: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,geni-se.yaml >>>>>>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm4250-oneplus-billie2.dtb: geniqup@4ac0000: >>>>>>> #address-cells:0:0: 2 was expected >>>>>>> From schema: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,geni-se.yaml >>>>>> >>>>>> Don't we want rather to unify the soc address range? >>>>> >>>>> Well, the assumption in the original dt-bindings was that every reg >>>>> variable is 4 * u32 wide (as most new qcom SoCs set #address- and >>>>> #size-cells to <2>). However, that is not the case for all of the >>>>> SoCs. >>>> >>>> Hm, which device of that SoC cannot be used with address/size cells 2? >>> >>> As noted in the git log already the geniqup on sm6115 / sm4250 cannot >>> be used with address/size cells 2 (See: >>> https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6115.dtsi#L795) >> SM6115 (and pretty much every other arm64 msm platform newer than 8916) >> should be using addr/size-cells = 2 along with (dma-)ranges of 36 bit, as >> that's what their smmus use and otherwise some addresses may get cut off >> in translation, or so the story went with 845 N years ago.. We can either >> pursue this patch or I can submit the 2-cell-ification if you don't plan on >> adding more nodes shortly > > > Have you tested this combination on SM6115 like SoCs with various IPs? I have tried a few experiments in the past and not all IPs work well with 36-bit DMA ranges (atleast not on the boards I have). Can you list any specific examples? I've been using it for quite some time now and I see nothing wrong.. > > So, I think it might lead to more breakage (unless we are sure of a well-tested fix). A simpler patch to fix the dt-bindings looks more useful IMO. I'm not saying no, you just have to convince Krzysztof :D Konrad > > Thanks, > Bhupesh
