[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMuHMdWk83QpTcbuBz=m6UZ+ShFM4rTt_UL-frzR3LmAf_Tb2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2024 09:48:22 +0100
From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Cc: "Rob Herring (Arm)" <robh@...nel.org>, Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] of: WARN on deprecated #address-cells/#size-cells handling
On Thu, Nov 7, 2024 at 12:37 PM Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au> wrote:
> "Rob Herring (Arm)" <robh@...nel.org> writes:
> > 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.
>
> I have various old device trees that have been given to me over the
> years, and as far as I can tell they all have these properties (some of
> them are partial trees so it's hard to be 100% sure).
Apparently CHRP LongTrail only had #address-cells in the root node.
Interestingly, /cpus does have a (zero) @size-cells property.
http://g33rt.be/migrated/Linux/PPC/root.html
http://g33rt.be/migrated/Linux/PPC/DeviceTree.html
No idea if any of them are still alive.
> So LGTM.
Indeed.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
Powered by blists - more mailing lists