[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4b5bebb0-ed74-8132-1e6b-cb7cbc21439c@canonical.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2021 21:04:01 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com>
To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@...aro.org>
Cc: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>,
linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Chanho Park <chanho61.park@...sung.com>,
linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
Youngmin Nam <youngmin.nam@...sung.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
David Virag <virag.david003@...il.com>,
Jaewon Kim <jaewon02.kim@...sung.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 RESEND 1/5] dt-bindings: soc: samsung: Add Exynos USI
bindings
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@...aro.org>
>> ---
>> 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@...200c0/serial@...20000: duplicate unit-address (also used in node /example-0/usi@...200c0/i2c@...20000)
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@...200c0 {
// enabled device/child
serial@...20000 {
status = "okay";
};
// disabled device, keep for reference and for boards which
// would like to use it
i2c@...20000 {
status = "disabled";
};
};
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists