On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 at 02:54, Aiqun Yu (Maria) <quic_aiquny@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 12/19/2023 6:21 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 at 12:09, Aiqun Yu (Maria) <quic_aiquny@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On 12/19/2023 5:41 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >>> On 19/12/2023 10:36, Aiqun Yu (Maria) wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 12/19/2023 3:17 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >>>>> On 19/12/2023 01:31, Tengfei Fan wrote: > >>>>>> The address/size-cells in mdss_dsi1 node have not ranges and child also > >>>>>> have not reg, then this leads to dtc W=1 warnings: > >>>>> > >>>> Comments can be more readable: > >>>> "mdss_dsi1" node don't have "ranges" or child "reg" property, while it > >>>> have address/size-cells properties. This caused > >>>> "avoid_unnecessary_addr_size" warning from dtb check. > >>>> Remove address/size-cells properties for "mdss_dsi1" node. > >>>> > >>>>> I cannot parse it. Address/size cells never have ranges or children. > >>>>> They cannot have. These are uint32 properties. > >>>> Pls help to comment on the revised commit message. Every time I write a > >>>> commit message, also takes a while for me to double confirm whether > >>>> others can understand me correctly as well. Feel free to let us know if > >>>> it is not readable to you. It will help us as non-English native developers. > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 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. > >>> > >>>> 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? > > > > Don't touch the bindings unless you understand what you are doing. > > Your patch will be NAKed. There can be a DSI panel attached to the DSI > > host, which means there is a need for #address-cells / #size-cells. > > > Could you please help to elaborate more on details? Like what's the > right example here for the "qcom,mdss-dsi-ctrl" driver node needed to > have "#address-cells"/"#size-cells". As I wrote, the attached DSI panels make use of #address-cells / #size-cells. Please take a look at the sdm845-mtp.dts, which provides a complex enough example (a panel which is attached to both DSI0 and DSI1 hosts). > Thx to chime in that we have put a good amount of time here. Can't quite catch you here. > > Please stop wasting the time on dtc warning. The bindings (and the > > file) are correct. > I don't agree here. > Either it is a wrong usage of "#address-cells"/"#size-cells", or dtc > warning should be fixed with this usage take into account. > "dtb check" will be a good guideline for developers to follow, I don't > think it is wasting time here. It is a guideline, but not a rule. No warnings by default is more of the rule. W=1 enables warnings that developers have to classify and cope with. E.g. I don't think dtc correctly handles the case when there are both with-address and no-address nodes (e.g. 'panel@0' and 'ports'). Note, I might be mistaken there. > > > > -- > Thx and BRs, > Aiqun(Maria) Yu -- With best wishes Dmitry
