[PATCH] dt-bindings: xlnx, vcu-settings: fix dt_binding_check warnings

[Rob Herring]

On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 12:59 PM Michal Simek <michal.simek at xilinx.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> On 09. 12. 20 19:34, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 09:48:04AM +0100, Michael Tretter wrote:
> >> On Thu, 03 Dec 2020 08:49:01 +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
> >>> On 02. 12. 20 10:05, Michael Tretter wrote:
> >>>> When running make dt_binding_check, the xlnx,vcu-settings binding
> >>>> triggers the following two warnings:
> >>>>
> >>>>    'additionalProperties' is a required property
> >>>>
> >>>>    example-0: vcu at a0041000:reg:0: [0, 2684620800, 0, 4096] is too long
> >>>>
> >>>> Fix the binding and make the checker happy.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Michael Tretter <m.tretter at pengutronix.de>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> The xlnx,vcu-settings binding was reviewed [0] before the bot started to
> >>>> run automated tests on the device tree bindings, but now produces some
> >>>> warnings. The original patch that introduces the binding is still in
> >>>> Michal's tree and I am not entirely sure how to handle it, but here is a
> >>>> patch.
> >>>>
> >>>> Michael
> >>>>
> >>>> [0] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20200429213659.GA9051@bogus/
> >>>> ---
> >>>>  .../bindings/soc/xilinx/xlnx,vcu-settings.yaml    | 15 ++++++++++++---
> >>>>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/xilinx/xlnx,vcu-settings.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/xilinx/xlnx,vcu-settings.yaml
> >>>> index 378d0ced43c8..cb245f400287 100644
> >>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/xilinx/xlnx,vcu-settings.yaml
> >>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/xilinx/xlnx,vcu-settings.yaml
> >>>> @@ -26,9 +26,18 @@ required:
> >>>>    - compatible
> >>>>    - reg
> >>>>
> >>>> +additionalProperties: false
> >>>> +
> >>>>  examples:
> >>>>    - |
> >>>> -    xlnx_vcu: vcu at a0041000 {
> >>>> -          compatible = "xlnx,vcu-settings", "syscon";
> >>>> -          reg = <0x0 0xa0041000 0x0 0x1000>;
> >>>> +    fpga {
> >>>> +        #address-cells = <2>;
> >>>> +        #size-cells = <2>;
> >>>> +
> >>>> +        xlnx_vcu: vcu at a0041000 {
> >>>> +            compatible = "xlnx,vcu-settings", "syscon";
> >>>> +            reg = <0x0 0xa0041000 0x0 0x1000>;
> >>>> +        };
> >>>
> >>> IIRC we had been discussing this recently and Rob wanted to have just
> >>> 1/1 mapping here.
> >>>
> >>> Take a look at 0db958b689ca9.
> >>
> >> Thanks for the pointer.
> >>
> >> Rob: Is there some kind of rule, when to use a 1/1 mapping and when to add a
> >> bus with more cells? I still see several examples that add a bus with 2 cells.
> >> I assume that they more or less legacy, but I didn't find any discussion going
> >> beyond the commit description of 0db958b689ca9, which "just" fixes the
> >> warnings.
> >>
> >> I will send a v2, but I'd like to understand the rationale for having the 1/1
> >> mapping first.
> >
> > Simplifies the example is all.
> >
> > This one is fine as-is.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh at kernel.org>
>
> I remember that we have been fixing that 2:2 mapping to 1:1 in past.
>
> And simplification in this case would be
> - reg = <0x0 0xa0041000 0x0 0x1000>;
> + reg = <0xa0041000 0x1000>;
>
> That's why I would like to know what we should be asking people to do.
> Or is it fine because it is the part of fpga node?

1:1 is my preference, but I'm not going to enforce either way.

Rob