| Message ID | 20220328152923.90623-1-krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | dt-bindings: display: msm: dsi: remove address/size cells | expand |
On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 12:01:52PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote: > On 28-03-22, 13:21, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 12:18 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski > > <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > On 28/03/2022 19:16, Vinod Koul wrote: > > > > On 28-03-22, 19:43, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > > >> On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 at 18:30, Krzysztof Kozlowski > > > >> <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> The DSI node is not a bus and the children do not have unit addresses. > > > >>> > > > >>> Reported-by: Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org> > > > >>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> > > > >> > > > >> NAK. > > > >> DSI panels are children of the DSI device tree node with the reg = <0>; address. > > > >> This is the convention used by other platforms too (see e.g. > > > >> arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx8mq-evk.dts). > > > > > > > > So we should add reg = 0, i will update my dtsi fix > > > > > > > > > > To "ports" node? No. The reg=0 is for children of the bus, so the > > > panels. How to combine both without warnings - ports and panel@0 - I > > > don't know yet... > > > > I don't think that should case a warning. Or at least it's one we turn off. > > Well in this case I think we might need a fix: > Here is the example quoted in the binding. We have ports{} and then the > two port@0 and port@1 underneath. It's the #address-cells/#size-cells under 'ports' that applies to 'port' nodes. As 'ports' has no address (reg) itself, it doesn't need #address-cells/#size-cells in its parent node. > > So it should be okay to drop #address-cells/#size-cells from dsi node > but keep in ports node... Yes. > Thoughts...? But I thought a panel@0 node was being added? If so then you need to add them back. Rob
On 29-03-22, 10:52, Rob Herring wrote: > On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 12:01:52PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote: > > On 28-03-22, 13:21, Rob Herring wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 12:18 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski > > > <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 28/03/2022 19:16, Vinod Koul wrote: > > > > > On 28-03-22, 19:43, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > > > >> On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 at 18:30, Krzysztof Kozlowski > > > > >> <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> The DSI node is not a bus and the children do not have unit addresses. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Reported-by: Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org> > > > > >>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> > > > > >> > > > > >> NAK. > > > > >> DSI panels are children of the DSI device tree node with the reg = <0>; address. > > > > >> This is the convention used by other platforms too (see e.g. > > > > >> arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx8mq-evk.dts). > > > > > > > > > > So we should add reg = 0, i will update my dtsi fix > > > > > > > > > > > > > To "ports" node? No. The reg=0 is for children of the bus, so the > > > > panels. How to combine both without warnings - ports and panel@0 - I > > > > don't know yet... > > > > > > I don't think that should case a warning. Or at least it's one we turn off. > > > > Well in this case I think we might need a fix: > > Here is the example quoted in the binding. We have ports{} and then the > > two port@0 and port@1 underneath. > > It's the #address-cells/#size-cells under 'ports' that applies to 'port' > nodes. As 'ports' has no address (reg) itself, it doesn't need > #address-cells/#size-cells in its parent node. > > > > > So it should be okay to drop #address-cells/#size-cells from dsi node > > but keep in ports node... > > Yes. > > > Thoughts...? > > But I thought a panel@0 node was being added? If so then you need to add > them back. I guess we should make this optional, keep it when adding panel@0 node and skip for rest where not applicable..? Dmitry is that fine with you?
On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 4:35 AM Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 09:05, Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > On 29-03-22, 10:52, Rob Herring wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 12:01:52PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote: > > > > On 28-03-22, 13:21, Rob Herring wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 12:18 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski > > > > > <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 28/03/2022 19:16, Vinod Koul wrote: > > > > > > > On 28-03-22, 19:43, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > > > > > >> On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 at 18:30, Krzysztof Kozlowski > > > > > > >> <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> The DSI node is not a bus and the children do not have unit addresses. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> Reported-by: Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org> > > > > > > >>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> NAK. > > > > > > >> DSI panels are children of the DSI device tree node with the reg = <0>; address. > > > > > > >> This is the convention used by other platforms too (see e.g. > > > > > > >> arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx8mq-evk.dts). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So we should add reg = 0, i will update my dtsi fix > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To "ports" node? No. The reg=0 is for children of the bus, so the > > > > > > panels. How to combine both without warnings - ports and panel@0 - I > > > > > > don't know yet... > > > > > > > > > > I don't think that should case a warning. Or at least it's one we turn off. > > > > > > > > Well in this case I think we might need a fix: > > > > Here is the example quoted in the binding. We have ports{} and then the > > > > two port@0 and port@1 underneath. > > > > > > It's the #address-cells/#size-cells under 'ports' that applies to 'port' > > > nodes. As 'ports' has no address (reg) itself, it doesn't need > > > #address-cells/#size-cells in its parent node. > > > > > > > > > > > So it should be okay to drop #address-cells/#size-cells from dsi node > > > > but keep in ports node... > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > Thoughts...? > > > > > > But I thought a panel@0 node was being added? If so then you need to add > > > them back. > > > > I guess we should make this optional, keep it when adding panel@0 node > > and skip for rest where not applicable..? Dmitry is that fine with you? > > This sounds like a workaround. When a panel node is added together > with the '#address-cells' / '#size-cells' properties, we will get > warnings for the 'ports' node. What warning exactly? Is that with W=1? Some warnings are more "don't do this on new designs" rather than never allowed and need to fix current bindings/dts. As such, these warnings will probably never be enabled by default. Rob
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/msm/dsi-controller-main.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/msm/dsi-controller-main.yaml index 7095ec3c890d..57f238f72326 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/msm/dsi-controller-main.yaml +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/msm/dsi-controller-main.yaml @@ -51,10 +51,6 @@ properties: phy-names: const: dsi - "#address-cells": true - - "#size-cells": true - syscon-sfpb: description: A phandle to mmss_sfpb syscon node (only for DSIv2). $ref: "/schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle" @@ -154,9 +150,6 @@ examples: reg = <0x0ae94000 0x400>; reg-names = "dsi_ctrl"; - #address-cells = <1>; - #size-cells = <0>; - interrupt-parent = <&mdss>; interrupts = <4>;
The DSI node is not a bus and the children do not have unit addresses. Reported-by: Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> --- .../bindings/display/msm/dsi-controller-main.yaml | 7 ------- 1 file changed, 7 deletions(-)