On 19/12/2023 11:09, Aiqun Yu (Maria) wrote: >>>>> >>>>> sm8550.dtsi:2937.27-2992.6: Warning (avoid_unnecessary_addr_size): /soc@0/display-subsystem@ae00000/dsi@ae96000: >>>>> unnecessary #address-cells/#size-cells without "ranges" or child "reg" property >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Reviewed-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Tengfei Fan <quic_tengfan@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> --- >>>> >>>> I disagreed with the patch before. You resubmit it without really >>>> addressing my concerns. >>>> >>>> I am not sure if this is correct fix and I want to fix all of such >>>> errors (there are multiple of them) in the same way. Feel free to >>>> propose common solution based on arguments. >>> Per my understanding, "qcom,mdss-dsi-ctrl" driver node like "mdss_dsi1" >>> don't need to have address/size-cells properties. >> >> Just because dtc says so? And what about bindings? > I don't find any reason why "qcom,mdss-dsi-ctrl" driver node need to > have address/size-cells properties. Document Bindings should also be fixed. Hm, maybe we misunderstand each other but I found clear reason: referencing common binding which mentions panels. Now, that's the reason for DTS but of course maybe hardware is different. I did not investigate that. >> >>> Feel free to let us know whether there is different idea of >>> "address/size-cells" needed for the "qcom,mdss-dsi-ctrl" driver node. >> >> The bindings expressed that idea. If the binding is incorrect, fix the >> binding and the DTS. If the binding is correct, provide rationale why it >> somehow does not apply here etc. > Our plan is to fix the bindings as well. > > In case you have missed the question, I just re-place it here: > While there are about 22 different soc dtsi and it's document binding > files needed to be fixed. Shall we fix it for all qcom related soc usage > in one patch, or we'd better to split into different patches according > to soc specifically? Both options work for me. Best regards, Krzysztof
