[PATCH 12/13] ARM: dts: stm32: fix DSI port node on STM32MP15

[Alexandre TORGUE]

On 4/19/21 3:57 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 2:23 PM Alexandre TORGUE
> <alexandre.torgue at 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 at 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.

For me, we can keep this series for the v5.14 cycle.

regards
alex

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