On 20/12/2023 01:53, Aiqun Yu (Maria) 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". Isn't the binding describing such example? > > Thx to chime in that we have put a good amount of time 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. You don't agree but you don't know how this binding works? Best regards, Krzysztof
