Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210415101037.1465-1-alexandre.torgue@foss.st.com>
 <20210415101037.1465-13-alexandre.torgue@foss.st.com> <ececc78c-4fca-bb93-ef62-5d107501d963@pengutronix.de>
 <96da49dc-f24d-aa12-e1d8-39b5a5b6fbc9@foss.st.com>
In-Reply-To: <96da49dc-f24d-aa12-e1d8-39b5a5b6fbc9@foss.st.com>
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Date:   Mon, 19 Apr 2021 15:57:10 +0200
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a1bGAUbqTGqyz+PB=7fuVLkJce0awtx1Z9PE3uiX6uysQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/13] ARM: dts: stm32: fix DSI port node on STM32MP15
To:     Alexandre TORGUE <alexandre.torgue@foss.st.com>
Cc:     Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@pengutronix.de>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>, Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>,
        Jagan Teki <jagan@amarulasolutions.com>,
        Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>,
        Marcin Sloniewski <marcin.sloniewski@gmail.com>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        DTML <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 2:23 PM Alexandre TORGUE
<alexandre.torgue@foss.st.com> wrote:
> On 4/15/21 12:43 PM, Ahmad Fatoum wrote:
> > On 15.04.21 12:10, Alexandre Torgue wrote:
> >> Running "make dtbs_check W=1", some warnings are reported concerning
> >> DSI. This patch reorder DSI nodes to avoid:
> >>
> >> soc/dsi@5a000000: unnecessary #address-cells/#size-cells without
> >> "ranges" or child "reg" property
> >
> > This reverts parts of commit 9c32f980d9 ("ARM: dts: stm32: preset
> > stm32mp15x video #address- and #size-cells"):
> >
> >      The cell count for address and size is defined by the binding and not
> >      something a board would change. Avoid each board adding this
> >      boilerplate by having the cell size specification in the SoC DTSI.
> >
> >
> > The DSI can have child nodes with a unit address (e.g. a panel) and ones
> > without (ports { } container). ports is described in the dtsi, panels are
> > described in the dts if available.
> >
> > Apparently, the checker is fine with
> > ports {
> >       #address-cells = <1>;
> >       #size-cells = <0>;
> > };
> >
> > I think my rationale for the patch above was sound, so I think the checker
> > taking offense at the DSI cells here should be considered a false positive.
>
> If it's a "false positive" warning then we need to find a way to not
> print it out. Else, it'll be difficult to distinguish which warnings are
> "normal" and which are not. This question could also be applied to patch[3].
>
> Arnd, Rob what is your feeling about this case ?

I don't have a strong opinion on this either way, but I would just
not apply this one for 5.13 in this case. Rob, Alexandre, please
let me know if I should apply the other patches before the
merge window, I usually don't mind taking bugfixes late before the
merge window, but I still want some level of confidence that they
are actually correct.

Ahmad, if you feel strongly about this particular issue, would you like
to suggest a patch for the checker?

        Arnd