This serie aims to reduce the number of device-tree warnings of
following boards :
- STM32F469-DISCO
- STM32MP15*
Those warnings were appearing either during build or when checking
dt-bindings and concern mostly LTDC and DSI IPs. They were due to the
following cases:
- 'panel-dsi@0' instead of 'panel@0' according to the YAML
- unnecessary #address-cells and #size-cells properties
- residual 'reg' field on single endpoints
First patch fixes stm32f469-disco device-tree.
Second patch fixes st,stm32-dsi.yaml dt-bindings.
Third patch fixes stm32mp15* device-trees.
Changes since v2:
* Added changelog
* Enhanced commit descriptions
Changes since v1:
* Added DSI subnode name change
* Included stm32f469-disco DT in the cleanup
* Included YAML fix to prevent regression
Raphael Gallais-Pou (3):
ARM: dts: stm32: fix warnings on stm32f469-disco board
dt-bindings: display: st,stm32-dsi: Remove unnecessary fields
ARM: dts: stm32: fix several DT warnings on stm32mp15
.../devicetree/bindings/display/st,stm32-dsi.yaml | 2 --
arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32f469-disco.dts | 4 ++--
arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp151.dtsi | 5 -----
arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157.dtsi | 7 -------
.../dts/stm32mp157a-icore-stm32mp1-ctouch2-of10.dts | 6 ++++--
.../boot/dts/stm32mp157a-icore-stm32mp1-edimm2.2.dts | 6 ++++--
.../stm32mp157a-microgea-stm32mp1-microdev2.0-of7.dts | 3 +--
arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157c-dk2.dts | 8 ++++++++
arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157c-ev1.dts | 10 +++++++---
arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157c-lxa-mc1.dts | 3 +--
arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp15xx-dhcor-avenger96.dtsi | 6 +-----
arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp15xx-dkx.dtsi | 3 +--
12 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
--
2.25.1
Several warnings regarding LTDC and DSI on stm32mp15* device-trees remains.
Those concern:
* "#size-cells" and "#address-cells" wrongly used
* residual "reg" property appearing on endpoints where it could be
avoided
* Changed 'panel-dsi@0' to 'panel@0' according to dsi-controller.yaml
Signed-off-by: Raphael Gallais-Pou <[email protected]>
---
arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp151.dtsi | 5 -----
arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157.dtsi | 7 -------
.../dts/stm32mp157a-icore-stm32mp1-ctouch2-of10.dts | 6 ++++--
.../boot/dts/stm32mp157a-icore-stm32mp1-edimm2.2.dts | 6 ++++--
.../stm32mp157a-microgea-stm32mp1-microdev2.0-of7.dts | 3 +--
arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157c-dk2.dts | 8 ++++++++
arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157c-ev1.dts | 10 +++++++---
arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157c-lxa-mc1.dts | 3 +--
arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp15xx-dhcor-avenger96.dtsi | 6 +-----
arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp15xx-dkx.dtsi | 3 +--
10 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp151.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp151.dtsi
index a98ae58e2c1c..bf3830dca742 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp151.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp151.dtsi
@@ -1529,11 +1529,6 @@ ltdc: display-controller@5a001000 {
clock-names = "lcd";
resets = <&rcc LTDC_R>;
status = "disabled";
-
- port {
- #address-cells = <1>;
- #size-cells = <0>;
- };
};
iwdg2: watchdog@5a002000 {
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157.dtsi
index 54e73ccea446..5e733cd16ff9 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157.dtsi
@@ -24,14 +24,7 @@ dsi: dsi@5a000000 {
clock-names = "pclk", "ref", "px_clk";
resets = <&rcc DSI_R>;
reset-names = "apb";
- #address-cells = <1>;
- #size-cells = <0>;
status = "disabled";
-
- ports {
- #address-cells = <1>;
- #size-cells = <0>;
- };
};
};
};
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157a-icore-stm32mp1-ctouch2-of10.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157a-icore-stm32mp1-ctouch2-of10.dts
index 9a2a4bc7d079..4279b26547df 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157a-icore-stm32mp1-ctouch2-of10.dts
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157a-icore-stm32mp1-ctouch2-of10.dts
@@ -49,6 +49,9 @@ &dsi {
phy-dsi-supply = <®18>;
ports {
+ #address-cells = <1>;
+ #size-cells = <0>;
+
port@0 {
reg = <0>;
dsi_in: endpoint {
@@ -104,8 +107,7 @@ <dc {
status = "okay";
port {
- ltdc_ep0_out: endpoint@0 {
- reg = <0>;
+ ltdc_ep0_out: endpoint {
remote-endpoint = <&dsi_in>;
};
};
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157a-icore-stm32mp1-edimm2.2.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157a-icore-stm32mp1-edimm2.2.dts
index 390ee8c05754..efba54289820 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157a-icore-stm32mp1-edimm2.2.dts
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157a-icore-stm32mp1-edimm2.2.dts
@@ -49,6 +49,9 @@ &dsi {
phy-dsi-supply = <®18>;
ports {
+ #address-cells = <1>;
+ #size-cells = <0>;
+
port@0 {
reg = <0>;
dsi_in_ltdc: endpoint {
@@ -104,8 +107,7 @@ <dc {
status = "okay";
port {
- ltdc_out_dsi: endpoint@0 {
- reg = <0>;
+ ltdc_out_dsi: endpoint {
remote-endpoint = <&dsi_in_ltdc>;
};
};
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157a-microgea-stm32mp1-microdev2.0-of7.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157a-microgea-stm32mp1-microdev2.0-of7.dts
index 0d7560ba2950..5116a7785201 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157a-microgea-stm32mp1-microdev2.0-of7.dts
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157a-microgea-stm32mp1-microdev2.0-of7.dts
@@ -81,8 +81,7 @@ <dc {
status = "okay";
port {
- ltdc_ep0_out: endpoint@0 {
- reg = <0>;
+ ltdc_ep0_out: endpoint {
remote-endpoint = <&panel_in>;
};
};
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157c-dk2.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157c-dk2.dts
index ab13e340f4ef..4bef2300ed7c 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157c-dk2.dts
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157c-dk2.dts
@@ -31,10 +31,15 @@ &cryp1 {
};
&dsi {
+ #address-cells = <1>;
+ #size-cells = <0>;
status = "okay";
phy-dsi-supply = <®18>;
ports {
+ #address-cells = <1>;
+ #size-cells = <0>;
+
port@0 {
reg = <0>;
dsi_in: endpoint {
@@ -82,6 +87,9 @@ <dc {
status = "okay";
port {
+ #address-cells = <1>;
+ #size-cells = <0>;
+
ltdc_ep1_out: endpoint@1 {
reg = <1>;
remote-endpoint = <&dsi_in>;
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157c-ev1.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157c-ev1.dts
index ba8e9d9a42fa..49ca94c19b02 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157c-ev1.dts
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157c-ev1.dts
@@ -101,9 +101,14 @@ dcmi_0: endpoint {
&dsi {
phy-dsi-supply = <®18>;
+ #address-cells = <1>;
+ #size-cells = <0>;
status = "okay";
ports {
+ #address-cells = <1>;
+ #size-cells = <0>;
+
port@0 {
reg = <0>;
dsi_in: endpoint {
@@ -119,7 +124,7 @@ dsi_out: endpoint {
};
};
- panel-dsi@0 {
+ panel@0 {
compatible = "raydium,rm68200";
reg = <0>;
reset-gpios = <&gpiof 15 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
@@ -239,8 +244,7 @@ <dc {
status = "okay";
port {
- ltdc_ep0_out: endpoint@0 {
- reg = <0>;
+ ltdc_ep0_out: endpoint {
remote-endpoint = <&dsi_in>;
};
};
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157c-lxa-mc1.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157c-lxa-mc1.dts
index 407ed3952f75..eada9cf257be 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157c-lxa-mc1.dts
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157c-lxa-mc1.dts
@@ -161,8 +161,7 @@ <dc {
status = "okay";
port {
- ltdc_ep0_out: endpoint@0 {
- reg = <0>;
+ ltdc_ep0_out: endpoint {
remote-endpoint = <&panel_input>;
};
};
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp15xx-dhcor-avenger96.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp15xx-dhcor-avenger96.dtsi
index 302efac5d26f..e1306f92fd82 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp15xx-dhcor-avenger96.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp15xx-dhcor-avenger96.dtsi
@@ -336,11 +336,7 @@ <dc {
status = "okay";
port {
- #address-cells = <1>;
- #size-cells = <0>;
-
- ltdc_ep0_out: endpoint@0 {
- reg = <0>;
+ ltdc_ep0_out: endpoint {
remote-endpoint = <&adv7513_in>;
};
};
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp15xx-dkx.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp15xx-dkx.dtsi
index 0f1110e42c93..a6e2e20f12fa 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp15xx-dkx.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp15xx-dkx.dtsi
@@ -457,8 +457,7 @@ <dc {
status = "okay";
port {
- ltdc_ep0_out: endpoint@0 {
- reg = <0>;
+ ltdc_ep0_out: endpoint {
remote-endpoint = <&sii9022_in>;
};
};
--
2.25.1
On 5/17/23 16:35, Raphael Gallais-Pou wrote:
Hi,
> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp15xx-dkx.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp15xx-dkx.dtsi
> index 0f1110e42c93..a6e2e20f12fa 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp15xx-dkx.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp15xx-dkx.dtsi
> @@ -457,8 +457,7 @@ <dc {
> status = "okay";
>
> port {
> - ltdc_ep0_out: endpoint@0 {
> - reg = <0>;
> + ltdc_ep0_out: endpoint {
> remote-endpoint = <&sii9022_in>;
> };
> };
This LTDC port/endpoint stuff always scares me, because I always feel I
get it wrong.
I believe the LTDC does have one "port" , correct.
But I think (?) that the LTDC has two endpoints, endpoint@0 for DPI
(parallel output out of the SoC) and endpoint@1 for DSI (internal
connection into the DSI serializer) ?
Only one of the endpoints can be connected at a time, but there are
actually two endpoints in the LTDC port {} node, aren't there ?
So the original description should be OK I think , maybe
#address/#size-cells are missing instead ?
Hi Marek
On 5/17/23 17:41, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 5/17/23 16:35, Raphael Gallais-Pou wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp15xx-dkx.dtsi
>> b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp15xx-dkx.dtsi
>> index 0f1110e42c93..a6e2e20f12fa 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp15xx-dkx.dtsi
>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp15xx-dkx.dtsi
>> @@ -457,8 +457,7 @@ <dc {
>> status = "okay";
>> port {
>> - ltdc_ep0_out: endpoint@0 {
>> - reg = <0>;
>> + ltdc_ep0_out: endpoint {
>> remote-endpoint = <&sii9022_in>;
>> };
>> };
>
> This LTDC port/endpoint stuff always scares me, because I always feel I get it
> wrong.
>
> I believe the LTDC does have one "port" , correct.
>
> But I think (?) that the LTDC has two endpoints, endpoint@0 for DPI (parallel
> output out of the SoC) and endpoint@1 for DSI (internal connection into the
> DSI serializer) ?
You are correct indeed, I rushed the patch and did not thought about this. I
agree that this can be confusing, as I also take some time to think through it.
>
> Only one of the endpoints can be connected at a time, but there are actually
> two endpoints in the LTDC port {} node, aren't there ?
Yes, they are mutually exclusive.
>
> So the original description should be OK I think , maybe #address/#size-cells
> are missing instead ?
Thing is: this file is only included in two device-trees : stm32mp157c-dk1.dts
and stm32mp157c-dk2.dts.
Among those two files there is only one which adds a second endpoint. Thus if
the fields are set higher in the hierarchy, a warning yields.
One way to do it would be to make the endpoint@0 go down in the device-tree with
its dependencies, so that both endpoints are the same level without generating
noise.
Raphaël
On 5/17/23 19:04, Raphael Gallais-Pou wrote:
> Hi Marek
Hi,
> On 5/17/23 17:41, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> On 5/17/23 16:35, Raphael Gallais-Pou wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp15xx-dkx.dtsi
>>> b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp15xx-dkx.dtsi
>>> index 0f1110e42c93..a6e2e20f12fa 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp15xx-dkx.dtsi
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp15xx-dkx.dtsi
>>> @@ -457,8 +457,7 @@ <dc {
>>> status = "okay";
>>> port {
>>> - ltdc_ep0_out: endpoint@0 {
>>> - reg = <0>;
>>> + ltdc_ep0_out: endpoint {
>>> remote-endpoint = <&sii9022_in>;
>>> };
>>> };
>>
>> This LTDC port/endpoint stuff always scares me, because I always feel I get it
>> wrong.
>>
>> I believe the LTDC does have one "port" , correct.
>>
>> But I think (?) that the LTDC has two endpoints, endpoint@0 for DPI (parallel
>> output out of the SoC) and endpoint@1 for DSI (internal connection into the
>> DSI serializer) ?
>
> You are correct indeed, I rushed the patch and did not thought about this. I
> agree that this can be confusing, as I also take some time to think through it.
>
>>
>> Only one of the endpoints can be connected at a time, but there are actually
>> two endpoints in the LTDC port {} node, aren't there ?
> Yes, they are mutually exclusive.
>>
>> So the original description should be OK I think , maybe #address/#size-cells
>> are missing instead ?
>
> Thing is: this file is only included in two device-trees : stm32mp157c-dk1.dts
> and stm32mp157c-dk2.dts.
>
> Among those two files there is only one which adds a second endpoint. Thus if
> the fields are set higher in the hierarchy, a warning yields.
I do not understand this one part, which warning are you trying to fix ?
I just ran '$ make CHECK_DTBS=1 stm32mp157a-dk1.dtb stm32mp157c-dk2.dtb'
in latest linux-next and there was no warning related to LTDC .
I think if you retain the stm32mp151.dtsi <dc { port { #address-cells
= <1>; #size-cells = <0>; }; }; part, then you wouldn't be getting any
warnings regarding LTDC , and you wouldn't have to remove the
unit-address from endpoint@0 .
btw. I do use both endpoint@0/endpoint@1 in Avenger96 DTOs, but those
are not submitted yet, I have to clean them up a bit more first.
> One way to do it would be to make the endpoint@0 go down in the device-tree with
> its dependencies, so that both endpoints are the same level without generating
> noise.
I'm afraid I really don't quite understand which warning you're
referring to. Can you please share that warning and ideally how to
trigger it (the command-line incantation) ?
--
Best regards,
Marek Vasut
On 5/18/23 01:33, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 5/17/23 19:04, Raphael Gallais-Pou wrote:
>> Hi Marek
>
> Hi,
>
>> On 5/17/23 17:41, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>> On 5/17/23 16:35, Raphael Gallais-Pou wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp15xx-dkx.dtsi
>>>> b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp15xx-dkx.dtsi
>>>> index 0f1110e42c93..a6e2e20f12fa 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp15xx-dkx.dtsi
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp15xx-dkx.dtsi
>>>> @@ -457,8 +457,7 @@ <dc {
>>>> status = "okay";
>>>> port {
>>>> - ltdc_ep0_out: endpoint@0 {
>>>> - reg = <0>;
>>>> + ltdc_ep0_out: endpoint {
>>>> remote-endpoint = <&sii9022_in>;
>>>> };
>>>> };
>>>
>>> This LTDC port/endpoint stuff always scares me, because I always feel I get it
>>> wrong.
>>>
>>> I believe the LTDC does have one "port" , correct.
>>>
>>> But I think (?) that the LTDC has two endpoints, endpoint@0 for DPI (parallel
>>> output out of the SoC) and endpoint@1 for DSI (internal connection into the
>>> DSI serializer) ?
>>
>> You are correct indeed, I rushed the patch and did not thought about this. I
>> agree that this can be confusing, as I also take some time to think through it.
>>
>>>
>>> Only one of the endpoints can be connected at a time, but there are actually
>>> two endpoints in the LTDC port {} node, aren't there ?
>> Yes, they are mutually exclusive.
>>>
>>> So the original description should be OK I think , maybe #address/#size-cells
>>> are missing instead ?
>>
>> Thing is: this file is only included in two device-trees : stm32mp157c-dk1.dts
>> and stm32mp157c-dk2.dts.
>>
>> Among those two files there is only one which adds a second endpoint. Thus if
>> the fields are set higher in the hierarchy, a warning yields.
>
> I do not understand this one part, which warning are you trying to fix ?
> I just ran '$ make CHECK_DTBS=1 stm32mp157a-dk1.dtb stm32mp157c-dk2.dtb' in
> latest linux-next and there was no warning related to LTDC .
I'm sorry, I looked back at it and my explanations are confusing.
I use Alex Torgue's tree, and I'm based on the next branch, but linux-next
should be the same I just checked it.
>
> I think if you retain the stm32mp151.dtsi <dc { port { #address-cells = <1>;
> #size-cells = <0>; }; }; part, then you wouldn't be getting any warnings
> regarding LTDC , and you wouldn't have to remove the unit-address from
> endpoint@0 .
>
> btw. I do use both endpoint@0/endpoint@1 in Avenger96 DTOs, but those are not
> submitted yet, I have to clean them up a bit more first.
>
>> One way to do it would be to make the endpoint@0 go down in the device-tree with
>> its dependencies, so that both endpoints are the same level without generating
>> noise.
>
> I'm afraid I really don't quite understand which warning you're referring to.
> Can you please share that warning and ideally how to trigger it (the
> command-line incantation) ?
Using '$ make dtbs W=1', you can observe several of the followings:
arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp151.dtsi:1533.9-1536.6: Warning
(avoid_unnecessary_addr_size): /soc/display-controller@5a001000/port:
unnecessary #address-cells/#size-cells without "ranges" or child "reg" property
arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp151.dtsi:1533.9-1536.6: Warning (graph_child_address):
/soc/display-controller@5a001000/port: graph node has single child node
'endpoint@0', #address-cells/#size-cells are not necessary
This <dc { port { #address-cells = <1>; #size-cells = <0>; }; }; part is
actually annoying. This is because there is several device-trees that only got
one endpoint, and some other that includes two.
For instance: stm32mp15xx-dhcor-avenger96.dtsi vs stm32mp157c-dk2.dts.
I would like to remove to root part of address/size field and let only the lower
device-trees with with multiple endpoints handle their own fields. I hope this
explains a bit better my process.
Regards,
Raphaël Gallais-Pou
On 5/25/23 10:14, Raphael Gallais-Pou wrote:
Hi,
>> I think if you retain the stm32mp151.dtsi <dc { port { #address-cells = <1>;
>> #size-cells = <0>; }; }; part, then you wouldn't be getting any warnings
>> regarding LTDC , and you wouldn't have to remove the unit-address from
>> endpoint@0 .
>>
>> btw. I do use both endpoint@0/endpoint@1 in Avenger96 DTOs, but those are not
>> submitted yet, I have to clean them up a bit more first.
>>
>>> One way to do it would be to make the endpoint@0 go down in the device-tree with
>>> its dependencies, so that both endpoints are the same level without generating
>>> noise.
>>
>> I'm afraid I really don't quite understand which warning you're referring to.
>> Can you please share that warning and ideally how to trigger it (the
>> command-line incantation) ?
>
> Using '$ make dtbs W=1', you can observe several of the followings:
>
> arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp151.dtsi:1533.9-1536.6: Warning
> (avoid_unnecessary_addr_size): /soc/display-controller@5a001000/port:
> unnecessary #address-cells/#size-cells without "ranges" or child "reg" property
> arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp151.dtsi:1533.9-1536.6: Warning (graph_child_address):
> /soc/display-controller@5a001000/port: graph node has single child node
> 'endpoint@0', #address-cells/#size-cells are not necessary
>
> This <dc { port { #address-cells = <1>; #size-cells = <0>; }; }; part is
> actually annoying. This is because there is several device-trees that only got
> one endpoint, and some other that includes two.
>
> For instance: stm32mp15xx-dhcor-avenger96.dtsi vs stm32mp157c-dk2.dts.
>
> I would like to remove to root part of address/size field and let only the lower
> device-trees with with multiple endpoints handle their own fields. I hope this
> explains a bit better my process.
After thinking about this some more, and digging through LTDC driver,
and testing on EV1, I think dropping the LTDC node endpoint@N and
reg=<N> altogether and just using port/endpoint (singular) is fine.
You might want to split the DSI node specific changes and the LTDC node
specific changes into separate patches (LTDC specific change like you
did in 1/3).
On 5/26/23 18:55, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 5/25/23 10:14, Raphael Gallais-Pou wrote:
>
> Hi,
Hi Marek,
>
>>> I think if you retain the stm32mp151.dtsi <dc { port { #address-cells = <1>;
>>> #size-cells = <0>; }; }; part, then you wouldn't be getting any warnings
>>> regarding LTDC , and you wouldn't have to remove the unit-address from
>>> endpoint@0 .
>>>
>>> btw. I do use both endpoint@0/endpoint@1 in Avenger96 DTOs, but those are not
>>> submitted yet, I have to clean them up a bit more first.
>>>
>>>> One way to do it would be to make the endpoint@0 go down in the device-tree
>>>> with
>>>> its dependencies, so that both endpoints are the same level without generating
>>>> noise.
>>>
>>> I'm afraid I really don't quite understand which warning you're referring to.
>>> Can you please share that warning and ideally how to trigger it (the
>>> command-line incantation) ?
>>
>> Using '$ make dtbs W=1', you can observe several of the followings:
>>
>> arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp151.dtsi:1533.9-1536.6: Warning
>> (avoid_unnecessary_addr_size): /soc/display-controller@5a001000/port:
>> unnecessary #address-cells/#size-cells without "ranges" or child "reg" property
>> arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp151.dtsi:1533.9-1536.6: Warning (graph_child_address):
>> /soc/display-controller@5a001000/port: graph node has single child node
>> 'endpoint@0', #address-cells/#size-cells are not necessary
>>
>> This <dc { port { #address-cells = <1>; #size-cells = <0>; }; }; part is
>> actually annoying. This is because there is several device-trees that only got
>> one endpoint, and some other that includes two.
>>
>> For instance: stm32mp15xx-dhcor-avenger96.dtsi vs stm32mp157c-dk2.dts.
>>
>> I would like to remove to root part of address/size field and let only the lower
>> device-trees with with multiple endpoints handle their own fields. I hope this
>> explains a bit better my process.
>
> After thinking about this some more, and digging through LTDC driver, and
> testing on EV1, I think dropping the LTDC node endpoint@N and reg=<N>
> altogether and just using port/endpoint (singular) is fine.
>
> You might want to split the DSI node specific changes and the LTDC node
> specific changes into separate patches (LTDC specific change like you did in
> 1/3).
Yes, I prepared a new serie with that split, to that it is better to read and
review.
Raphaël
On 5/29/23 10:07, Raphael Gallais-Pou wrote:
Hi,
>>>> I think if you retain the stm32mp151.dtsi <dc { port { #address-cells = <1>;
>>>> #size-cells = <0>; }; }; part, then you wouldn't be getting any warnings
>>>> regarding LTDC , and you wouldn't have to remove the unit-address from
>>>> endpoint@0 .
>>>>
>>>> btw. I do use both endpoint@0/endpoint@1 in Avenger96 DTOs, but those are not
>>>> submitted yet, I have to clean them up a bit more first.
>>>>
>>>>> One way to do it would be to make the endpoint@0 go down in the device-tree
>>>>> with
>>>>> its dependencies, so that both endpoints are the same level without generating
>>>>> noise.
>>>>
>>>> I'm afraid I really don't quite understand which warning you're referring to.
>>>> Can you please share that warning and ideally how to trigger it (the
>>>> command-line incantation) ?
>>>
>>> Using '$ make dtbs W=1', you can observe several of the followings:
>>>
>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp151.dtsi:1533.9-1536.6: Warning
>>> (avoid_unnecessary_addr_size): /soc/display-controller@5a001000/port:
>>> unnecessary #address-cells/#size-cells without "ranges" or child "reg" property
>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp151.dtsi:1533.9-1536.6: Warning (graph_child_address):
>>> /soc/display-controller@5a001000/port: graph node has single child node
>>> 'endpoint@0', #address-cells/#size-cells are not necessary
>>>
>>> This <dc { port { #address-cells = <1>; #size-cells = <0>; }; }; part is
>>> actually annoying. This is because there is several device-trees that only got
>>> one endpoint, and some other that includes two.
>>>
>>> For instance: stm32mp15xx-dhcor-avenger96.dtsi vs stm32mp157c-dk2.dts.
>>>
>>> I would like to remove to root part of address/size field and let only the lower
>>> device-trees with with multiple endpoints handle their own fields. I hope this
>>> explains a bit better my process.
>>
>> After thinking about this some more, and digging through LTDC driver, and
>> testing on EV1, I think dropping the LTDC node endpoint@N and reg=<N>
>> altogether and just using port/endpoint (singular) is fine.
>>
>> You might want to split the DSI node specific changes and the LTDC node
>> specific changes into separate patches (LTDC specific change like you did in
>> 1/3).
>
> Yes, I prepared a new serie with that split, to that it is better to read and
> review.
Thank you !