Hi Heiko,
First of all, thanks a lot for doing this!
On 4/23/24 10:29, Heiko Stuebner wrote:
> The dtbs check throws a warning about node naming with the recently
> added pf5-display-overlay:
> rockchip/rk3568-wolfvision-pf5-display.dtsi:113.6-121.3: Warning (graph_port): /fragment@4/__overlay__: graph port node name should be 'port'
>
> This comes from the overlay just referencing the vp2-port-node via
> its phandle and then adding an endpoint beneath it.
>
> While this is possible something to handle inside the dtbs check,
> carrying around the warning is not pretty, so change the description
> to go around it.
What is the rationale behind that check? Describing a port in a SoC dtsi
or board dts and using the reference in an overlay is quite convenient
and above all concise.
Cc: device tree list
> Starting from the vop_out phandle and then referencing the port
> via its generic port@2 nodename will satisfy the port<->endpoint
> naming dependency while keeping the same structure once the overlay
> is applied.
>
> Reported-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> .../rockchip/rk3568-wolfvision-pf5-display.dtsi | 14 ++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3568-wolfvision-pf5-display.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3568-wolfvision-pf5-display.dtsi
> index b22bb543ecbb..18c807c39e56 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3568-wolfvision-pf5-display.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3568-wolfvision-pf5-display.dtsi
> @@ -110,12 +110,14 @@ &pwm10 {
> status = "okay";
> };
>
> -&vp2 {
> - #address-cells = <1>;
> - #size-cells = <0>;
> +&vop_out {
> + port@2 {
> + #address-cells = <1>;
> + #size-cells = <0>;
>
> - vp2_out_rgb: endpoint@ROCKCHIP_VOP2_EP_RGB0 {
> - reg = <ROCKCHIP_VOP2_EP_RGB0>;
> - remote-endpoint = <&panel_in_vp2>;
> + vp2_out_rgb: endpoint@ROCKCHIP_VOP2_EP_RGB0 {
> + reg = <ROCKCHIP_VOP2_EP_RGB0>;
> + remote-endpoint = <&panel_in_vp2>;
> + };
> };
> };
With this patch applied the DTC warning "Warning (graph_port):
/fragment@4/__overlay__: graph port node name should be 'port'"
vanishes, but a different DTC warning "Warning (unit_address_vs_reg):
/fragment@4/__overlay__/port@2: node has a unit name, but no reg or
ranges property" appears. Can you reproduce this?
I tried to fix that by adding the reg property, but then DTC complained
about "Warning (graph_port): /fragment@9/__overlay__/ports/port@0: graph
node '#size-cells' is -1, must be 0"
Then, I added the #size-cells property to avoid this. However, DTC
complained about this property not being necessary as there is only one
port. I stopped at this point.
I would say the real question is how this hardware should look like in
the device tree (overlay). Then, the compiler and/or build scripts can
be adjusted to tolerate this.
Thanks and best regards,
Michael
