On 30/11/2021 18:43, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 13:13:21 +0200, Sam Protsenko wrote:
>> Add constants for choosing USIv2 configuration mode in device tree.
>> Those are further used in USI driver to figure out which value to write
>> into SW_CONF register. Also document USIv2 IP-core bindings.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> Changes in v2:
>> - Combined dt-bindings doc and dt-bindings header patches
>> - Added i2c node to example in bindings doc
>> - Added mentioning of shared internal circuits
>> - Added USI_V2_NONE value to bindings header
>>
>> .../bindings/soc/samsung/exynos-usi.yaml | 135 ++++++++++++++++++
>> include/dt-bindings/soc/samsung,exynos-usi.h | 17 +++
>> 2 files changed, 152 insertions(+)
>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/samsung/exynos-usi.yaml
>> create mode 100644 include/dt-bindings/soc/samsung,exynos-usi.h
>>
>
> My bot found errors running 'make DT_CHECKER_FLAGS=-m dt_binding_check'
> on your patch (DT_CHECKER_FLAGS is new in v5.13):
>
> yamllint warnings/errors:
>
> dtschema/dtc warnings/errors:
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/samsung/exynos-usi.example.dts:35.39-42.15: Warning (unique_unit_address): /example-0/usi@138200c0/serial@13820000: duplicate unit-address (also used in node /example-0/usi@138200c0/i2c@13820000)
Rob,
The checker complains about two nodes with same unit-address, even
though the node name is different. Does it mean that our idea of
embedding two children in USI and having enabled only one (used one) is
wrong?
usi0: usi@138200c0 {
// enabled device/child
serial@13820000 {
status = "okay";
};
// disabled device, keep for reference and for boards which
// would like to use it
i2c@13820000 {
status = "disabled";
};
};
Best regards,
Krzysztof
