[PATCH v2 1/3] arm64: dts: exynos: Add missing unit name to Exynos7 SoC node

[Javier Martinez Canillas]

Hello Rob,

On 01/10/2017 04:55 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> Hello Krzysztof,
> 
> On 01/10/2017 03:47 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 02:38:30PM -0300, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>>> This patch fixes the following DTC warning about a mismatch
>>> between a device node reg property and its unit name:
>>>
>>> Node /soc has a reg or ranges property, but no unit name
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier at osg.samsung.com>
>>> ---
>>>
>>>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/exynos7.dtsi | 2 +-
>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/exynos7.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/exynos7.dtsi
>>> index 80aa60e38237..0d2fedc6ac2f 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/exynos7.dtsi
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/exynos7.dtsi
>>> @@ -69,7 +69,7 @@
>>>  		method = "smc";
>>>  	};
>>>  
>>> -	soc: soc {
>>> +	soc: soc at 0 {
>>
>> This looks unnatural, like a fix just to silence the DTC. Mostly de do
>> not enumerate soc node, although there are few exceptions.
>>
> 
> Yes, but OTOH arm32 Exynos SoCs just have an empty "ranges" property in their
> soc device node (parent and child address space is the same, no translation)
> so DTC doesn't complain about the unit address in those.
> 
> But others SoCs DTSI with a non-empty ranges property have an unit name in
> their soc nodes, i.e for arm64 and arm32:
> 
> arch/arm64/boot/dts/marvell/berlin4ct.dtsi
> 
> arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi
>  
>> I would prefer ignore the warning... however I am happy to hear other opinions.
>>
> 
> If is wrong/unnatural to have addresses for soc nodes then I think DTC should
> be patched to ignore these (like it will be the case for the OPP nodes AFAIU).
> 

Any comments about this?

>> Best regards,
>> Krzysztof
>>
> 
> Best regards,
> 

Best regards,
-- 
Javier Martinez Canillas
Open Source Group
Samsung Research America