On 20/12/2023 11:33, Aiqun Yu (Maria) wrote: >>>> >>>> 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). > I can see the panel example now. > While panel@0 likely node is not at in the binding that I've checked. "Likely not" is not the same as "cannot". > There are quite a few of binding document about the same driver. I You keep mixing drivers, bindings and devices which does not help this discussion. I really do not understand above sentence. > checked 5 of the bindings document and moste of them are alike, and > don't have the panel example.:( Example like the example DTS in the binding? What does it have to do with anything here? What are we talking here about? >> >>> 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. > Now I understand the issue, here is some thinking from my end, and > welcome others to chime in with more ideas: > 1. Only put "#address-cells" "#size-cells" right before node of panel@0. > 2. Align current binding document with "panel@0" examples. Examples? Again, about what examples are you talking? Mixing terminology does not help this discussion, so let's be specific: Touching examples just because you want, without valid reason: no > 3. Too many bindings files for driver "qcom,mdss-dsi-ctrl", shall we > align them into 1 binding files. You are joking right? First of all, there is no driver "qcom,mdss-dsi-ctrl". Don't mix the terms, because it does not help the discussion. Second, please read previous discussions related to these bindings. > 4. enhance the dtc warning check if we still want to have > "#address-cells" "#size-cells" even if there is no "panel@0" attached. > > @krzy here I try to answer your comments here as well. > I am disagree on leave the warning as it is. And want to do something to > improve this. Ideas above. > Let me know if any comments is not right addressed from your comments. You want to do something without understanding the problem which results in random band-aids over some warning. Instead, please dig deeper to understand the problem and then propose solution. Best regards, Krzysztof
