On 24/08/2024 01:39, Georgi Djakov wrote: > On 30.07.24 17:32, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 30/07/2024 16:10, djakov@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>> From: Georgi Djakov <djakov@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> The virtual interconnect providers do not have their own IO address space, >>> but this is not documented in the DT schema and the following warnings are >>> reported by dtbs_check: >>> >>> sc8180x-lenovo-flex-5g.dtb: interconnect-camnoc-virt: 'reg' is a required property >>> sc8180x-lenovo-flex-5g.dtb: interconnect-mc-virt: 'reg' is a required property >>> sc8180x-lenovo-flex-5g.dtb: interconnect-qup-virt: 'reg' is a required property >>> sc8180x-primus.dtb: interconnect-camnoc-virt: 'reg' is a required property >>> sc8180x-primus.dtb: interconnect-mc-virt: 'reg' is a required property >>> sc8180x-primus.dtb: interconnect-qup-virt: 'reg' is a required property >>> >>> Fix this by adding them to the list of compatibles that do not require >>> the reg property. >> >> So I guess we are giving up on >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230530162454.51708-4-vkoul@xxxxxxxxxx/ >> ? > > Thanks for the pointer! That approach is fine too, but i was expecting > a re-send and then later completely forgot about it. I have a slight > preference towards my patch, because it is more compact, but i can also > revive Vinod's patch if you think that it would be a better pattern to > follow in the long term. Vinod sent his patch more than a year ago, so I think we are indeed giving up on this :) Best regards, Krzysztof
