[PATCH v2 RESEND 1/5] dt-bindings: soc: samsung: Add Exynos USI bindings

[Rob Herring]

On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 5:01 AM Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko at linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 at 18:20, Rob Herring <robh at kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 2:04 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski
> > <krzysztof.kozlowski at canonical.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 30/11/2021 18:43, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 13:13:21 +0200, Sam Protsenko wrote:
> > > >> Add constants for choosing USIv2 configuration mode in device tree.
> > > >> Those are further used in USI driver to figure out which value to write
> > > >> into SW_CONF register. Also document USIv2 IP-core bindings.
> > > >>
> > > >> Signed-off-by: Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko at linaro.org>
> > > >> ---
> > > >> Changes in v2:
> > > >>   - Combined dt-bindings doc and dt-bindings header patches
> > > >>   - Added i2c node to example in bindings doc
> > > >>   - Added mentioning of shared internal circuits
> > > >>   - Added USI_V2_NONE value to bindings header
> > > >>
> > > >>  .../bindings/soc/samsung/exynos-usi.yaml      | 135 ++++++++++++++++++
> > > >>  include/dt-bindings/soc/samsung,exynos-usi.h  |  17 +++
> > > >>  2 files changed, 152 insertions(+)
> > > >>  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/samsung/exynos-usi.yaml
> > > >>  create mode 100644 include/dt-bindings/soc/samsung,exynos-usi.h
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > My bot found errors running 'make DT_CHECKER_FLAGS=-m dt_binding_check'
> > > > on your patch (DT_CHECKER_FLAGS is new in v5.13):
> > > >
> > > > yamllint warnings/errors:
> > > >
> > > > dtschema/dtc warnings/errors:
> > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/samsung/exynos-usi.example.dts:35.39-42.15: Warning (unique_unit_address): /example-0/usi at 138200c0/serial at 13820000: duplicate unit-address (also used in node /example-0/usi at 138200c0/i2c at 13820000)
> > >
> > > Rob,
> > >
> > > The checker complains about two nodes with same unit-address, even
> > > though the node name is different. Does it mean that our idea of
> > > embedding two children in USI and having enabled only one (used one) is
> > > wrong?
> >
> > IIRC, we allow for this exact scenario, and there was a change in dtc
> > for it. So I'm not sure why this triggered.
> >
>
> It's triggered from WARNING(unique_unit_address, ...), because it
> calls static void check_unique_unit_address_common() function with
> disable_check=false. I guess we should interpret that this way: the
> warning makes sense in regular case, when having the same unit address
> for two nodes is wrong. So the warning is reasonable, it's just not
> relevant in this particular case. What can be done:
>
>   1. We can introduce some specific property to mark nodes with
> duplicated address as intentional. check_unique_unit_address_common()
> can be extended then to omit checking the nodes if that property is
> present.
>   2. We can just ignore that warning in this particular case (and
> similar cases).
>   3. We can add some disambiguation note to that warning message, like
> "if it's intentional -- please ignore this message"
>
> I'm all for option (3), as it's the easiest one, and still reasonable.
> Rob, what do you think? Can we just ignore that warning in further
> versions of this patch series?

Just change the dtc flags to '-Wno-unique_unit_address
-Wunique_unit_address_if_enabled' for both examples and dtbs.

Rob