On 08/11/2024 11:04, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> On 06.11.2024 18:10, Rob Herring (Arm) wrote:
>> While OpenFirmware originally allowed walking parent nodes and default
>> root values for #address-cells and #size-cells, FDT has long required
>> explicit values. It's been a warning in dtc for the root node since the
>> beginning (2005) and for any parent node since 2007. Of course, not all
>> FDT uses dtc, but that should be the majority by far. The various
>> extracted OF devicetrees I have dating back to the 1990s (various
>> PowerMac, OLPC, PASemi Nemo) all have explicit root node properties. The
>> warning is disabled for Sparc as there are known systems relying on
>> default root node values.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Rob Herring (Arm) <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> v2:
>> - Add a define for excluded platforms to help clarify the intent
>> is to have an exclude list and make adding platforms easier.
>> - Also warn when walking parent nodes.
>> ---
>> drivers/of/base.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++------
>> drivers/of/fdt.c | 4 ++--
>> 2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> This patch landed in today's linux-next as commit 4b28a0dec185 ("of:
> WARN on deprecated #address-cells/#size-cells handling"). In my tests I
> found that it introduces warnings on almost all of my test systems. I
> took a look at the first one I got in my logs (Samsung Exynos Rinato
> board: arch/arm/boot/dts/samsung/exynos3250-rinato.dts):
Just a "me too" for rk3288-firefly.dtb:
[ 0.138735] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 1 at drivers/of/base.c:106 of_bus_n_addr_cells+0x9c/0xd8
[ 0.138776] Missing '#address-cells' in /power-management@ff730000
I'm sure it's easy to fix up the DTB, but we shouldn't be breaking long existing DTBs.
Steve
