Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] ARM: dts: rockchip: add missing @0 to memory
 nodenames
To:     Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>, robh+dt@kernel.org
Cc:     devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20200304074051.8742-1-jbx6244@gmail.com>
 <20200304074051.8742-2-jbx6244@gmail.com> <1784340.9KJLpVao5L@phil>
From:   Johan Jonker <jbx6244@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2a5ef6fc-2487-91ef-24ce-97dd47b0a137@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 5 Mar 2020 23:21:52 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.4.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1784340.9KJLpVao5L@phil>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Heiko,

Goal was to reduce the error output of existing code a little bit,
so that we can use it for the review of new patches.
Some questions:
As I don't have the hardware, where else is coreboot used?
Is this a rk3288-veyron.dtsi problem only?
ie. Is it a option to produce a patch serie v2 without veyron?
Can someone help testing?

Johan

On 3/5/20 10:31 PM, Heiko Stuebner wrote:
> Hi Johan,
>
> Am Mittwoch, 4. März 2020, 08:40:50 CET schrieb Johan Jonker:
>> A test with the command below gives for example this error:
>>
>> arch/arm/boot/dts/rk3288-tinker.dt.yaml: /: memory:
>> False schema does not allow
>> {'device_type': ['memory'], 'reg': [[0, 0, 0, 2147483648]]}
>>
>> The memory nodes all have a reg property that requires '@' in
>> the nodename. Fix this error by adding the missing '@0' to
>> the involved memory nodenames.
>>
>> make ARCH=arm dtbs_check
>> DT_SCHEMA_FILES=~/.local/lib/python3.5/site-packages/dtschema/
>> schemas/root-node.yaml
>
> changes to memory nodes you sadly cannot do in such an automated fashion.
> If you read the comment in rk3288-veyron.dtsi you'll see that a previous
> similar iteration broke all of those machines as their coreboot doesn't
> copy with memory@0 and would insert another memory node without @0
>
> In the past iteration the consensus then was that memory without @0
> is also ok (as it isn't changeable anyway).
>

> As I don't really want to repeat that, I'd like actual hardware tests
> before touching memory nodes.

Any suggestion/feedback rapport welcome.

>
> Heiko
>
>