Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <948ad9a2-f346-c42f-7b1f-47edda19a823@denx.de>
Date:   Mon, 29 May 2023 11:49:38 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.11.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] ARM: dts: stm32: fix several DT warnings on
 stm32mp15
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Raphael Gallais-Pou <raphael.gallais-pou@foss.st.com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
        Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com>,
        Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@foss.st.com>,
        Philippe Cornu <philippe.cornu@foss.st.com>,
        Yannick Fertre <yannick.fertre@foss.st.com>
Cc:     dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kernel@dh-electronics.com
References: <20230517143542.284029-1-raphael.gallais-pou@foss.st.com>
 <20230517143542.284029-4-raphael.gallais-pou@foss.st.com>
 <f64de05b-8854-4345-80c2-f424968defdc@denx.de>
 <e963370c-7018-243a-712d-62ca8463bfd8@foss.st.com>
 <5f201903-17cb-5054-763c-f03b1066db1d@denx.de>
 <32fafa74-8964-c9cf-f95b-f2cd084f46c6@foss.st.com>
 <b23ddf9e-6bba-68df-cf28-cc0e2c4218ac@denx.de>
 <cc6a1064-8b53-c63d-9592-92748b67639a@foss.st.com>
From:   Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>
In-Reply-To: <cc6a1064-8b53-c63d-9592-92748b67639a@foss.st.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 5/29/23 10:07, Raphael Gallais-Pou wrote:

Hi,

>>>> I think if you retain the stm32mp151.dtsi &ltdc { 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 &ltdc { 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 !