linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] arm64: dts: ti: k3: squelch warnings regarding no #address-cells for interrupt-controller

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ab9658ef-c8a7-155b-acb1-effa872132ca@ti.com>
Date:   Wed, 18 Nov 2020 13:38:37 +0200
From:   Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>
To:     Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
        Tero Kristo <t-kristo@...com>,
        Device Tree Mailing List <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
CC:     Linux ARM Mailing List <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Faiz Abbas <faiz_abbas@...com>,
        Lokesh Vutla <lokeshvutla@...com>,
        Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] arm64: dts: ti: k3: squelch warnings regarding no
 #address-cells for interrupt-controller

Hi Rob,

On 17/11/2020 18:19, Sekhar Nori wrote:
> With dtc 1.6.0, building TI device-tree files with W=2 results in warnings
> like below for all interrupt controllers.
> 
> /bus@...000/bus@...00000/interrupt-controller1: Missing #address-cells in interrupt provider
> 
> Fix these by adding #address-cells = <0>; for all interrupt controllers in
> TI device-tree files. Any other #address-cells value is really only needed
> if interrupt-map property is being used (which is not the case for existing
> TI device-tree files)
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>
> ---
>   arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am65-main.dtsi              |  5 +++++
>   arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am65-wakeup.dtsi            |  2 ++
>   arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am654-base-board.dts        |  1 +
>   arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j7200-main.dtsi             |  3 +++
>   arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j7200-mcu-wakeup.dtsi       |  1 +
>   arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e-common-proc-board.dts |  1 +
>   arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e-main.dtsi             | 11 +++++++++++
>   arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e-mcu-wakeup.dtsi       |  3 +++
>   8 files changed, 27 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am65-main.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am65-main.dtsi
> index aa8725db0187..55aaa1404d7d 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am65-main.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am65-main.dtsi
> @@ -440,6 +440,7 @@
>   		interrupt-controller;
>   		interrupt-parent = <&gic500>;
>   		#interrupt-cells = <1>;
> +		#address-cells = <0>;
Does it really required or mandatory to have #address-cells = <0>; defined for interrupt-controller DT nodes which
do not have child nodes and no "interrupt-map"?

-- 
Best regards,
grygorii