On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 12:01:52PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
> On 28-03-22, 13:21, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 12:18 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski
> > <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 28/03/2022 19:16, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > > > On 28-03-22, 19:43, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > > >> On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 at 18:30, Krzysztof Kozlowski
> > > >> <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> The DSI node is not a bus and the children do not have unit addresses.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Reported-by: Vinod Koul <vkoul@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >>
> > > >> NAK.
> > > >> DSI panels are children of the DSI device tree node with the reg = <0>; address.
> > > >> This is the convention used by other platforms too (see e.g.
> > > >> arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx8mq-evk.dts).
> > > >
> > > > So we should add reg = 0, i will update my dtsi fix
> > > >
> > >
> > > To "ports" node? No. The reg=0 is for children of the bus, so the
> > > panels. How to combine both without warnings - ports and panel@0 - I
> > > don't know yet...
> >
> > I don't think that should case a warning. Or at least it's one we turn off.
>
> Well in this case I think we might need a fix:
> Here is the example quoted in the binding. We have ports{} and then the
> two port@0 and port@1 underneath.
It's the #address-cells/#size-cells under 'ports' that applies to 'port'
nodes. As 'ports' has no address (reg) itself, it doesn't need
#address-cells/#size-cells in its parent node.
>
> So it should be okay to drop #address-cells/#size-cells from dsi node
> but keep in ports node...
Yes.
> Thoughts...?
But I thought a panel@0 node was being added? If so then you need to add
them back.
Rob
