On Sonntag, 3. Dezember 2023 05:20:23 CET Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 25, 2023 at 01:19:27PM +0100, Luca Weiss wrote:
> > The dtbs_check really doesn't like having memory without reg set.
> >
> > The base address depends on the amount of RAM you have:
> > <= 2.00 GiB RAM: 0x80000000
> >
> > = 3.00 GiB RAM: 0x40000000
> > = 3.75 GiB RAM: 0x10000000
> >
> > (more does not fit into the 32-bit physical address space)
> >
> > So, let's pick one of the values, 0x10000000 which is used on devices
> > with 3.75 GiB RAM. Since the bootloader will update it to what's present
> > on the device it doesn't matter too much.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Luca Weiss <luca@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >
> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8953.dtsi | 4 ++--
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8953.dtsi
> > b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8953.dtsi index e7de7632669a..a3ba24ca599b
> > 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8953.dtsi
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8953.dtsi
> > @@ -174,10 +174,10 @@ scm: scm {
> >
> > };
> >
> > };
> >
> > - memory {
>
> Wouldn't it be sufficient to add @0 here, to please dtbs_check?
The checker itself also seems to be okay with memory@0 and no other change,
but there's this warning with W=1
arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8953.dtsi:177.11-181.4: Warning (unique_unit_address_if_enabled): /memory@0: duplicate unit-address (also used in node /soc@0)
So probably we should still try to put it at a reasonable address like
0x10000000?
Regards
Luca
>
> Regards,
> Bjorn
>
> > + memory@10000000 {
> >
> > device_type = "memory";
> > /* We expect the bootloader to fill in the reg */
> >
> > - reg = <0 0 0 0>;
> > + reg = <0 0x10000000 0 0>;
> >
> > };
> >
> > pmu {
