[PATCH v2 13/13] ARM: dts: sun9i: Add missing unit address

[Maxime Ripard]

On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 06:22:44PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 5:16 PM Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard at bootlin.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 05:09:22PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 5:02 PM Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard at bootlin.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 10:39:24AM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 4:16 AM Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard at bootlin.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The soc node in the A80 DTSI has a ranges property, but no matching unit
> > > > > > address, which results in a DTC warning. Add the unit address to remove
> > > > > > that warning.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard at bootlin.com>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >  arch/arm/boot/dts/sun9i-a80.dtsi | 2 +-
> > > > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun9i-a80.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun9i-a80.dtsi
> > > > > > index 9b15f272e5f5..7a495c84ab65 100644
> > > > > > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun9i-a80.dtsi
> > > > > > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun9i-a80.dtsi
> > > > > > @@ -289,7 +289,7 @@
> > > > > >                 status = "disabled";
> > > > > >         };
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -       soc {
> > > > > > +       soc at 20000 {
> > > > >
> > > > > I thought we didn't like the soc node having an address?
> > > >
> > > > In general, yes, but in general we also don't have a ranges property.
> > > >
> > > > > Maybe we just bite the bullet and use 64-bit addresses and sizes for
> > > > > the A80?
> > > >
> > > > I'd rather not, the current layout of the DT is pretty nice.
> > > >
> > > > But now I'm thinking, do you remember why we need to do that mapping
> > > > in the first place? It's a 32bits SoCs, so why do we need to care
> > > > about 64 bits addresses?
> > >
> > > It supports LPAE, addressing up to 8GB of RAM. Not that I've seen a
> > > board sporting that much RAM though. Theobroma Systems might have
> > > had such a board though, as their product page says "up to 8GB RAM".
> >
> > Ah, right. What should we do about this patch then?
> 
> I'm OK with it I suppose. AFAICT only sysfs paths and overlays (which should
> use labels instead) are affected.

We can always revert it if there's any fallouts, but we did it already
on a number of other SoCs (well, the opposite actually, dropping the
unit address), and it wasn't an issue.

Maxime

-- 
Maxime Ripard, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/attachments/20190315/ded331f6/attachment.sig>