[PATCH 07/14] riscv: dts: canaan: fix the k210's memory node

[Damien Le Moal]

On 6/20/22 08:54, Conor.Dooley at microchip.com wrote:
> On 20/06/2022 00:38, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>>
>> On 6/18/22 21:30, Conor Dooley wrote:
>>> From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley at microchip.com>
>>>
>>> The k210 memory node has a compatible string that does not match with
>>> any driver or dt-binding & has several non standard properties.
>>> Replace the reg names with a comment and delete the rest.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley at microchip.com>
>>> ---
>>> ---
>>>  arch/riscv/boot/dts/canaan/k210.dtsi | 6 ------
>>>  1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/boot/dts/canaan/k210.dtsi b/arch/riscv/boot/dts/canaan/k210.dtsi
>>> index 44d338514761..287ea6eebe47 100644
>>> --- a/arch/riscv/boot/dts/canaan/k210.dtsi
>>> +++ b/arch/riscv/boot/dts/canaan/k210.dtsi
>>> @@ -69,15 +69,9 @@ cpu1_intc: interrupt-controller {
>>>
>>>       sram: memory at 80000000 {
>>>               device_type = "memory";
>>> -             compatible = "canaan,k210-sram";
>>>               reg = <0x80000000 0x400000>,
>>>                     <0x80400000 0x200000>,
>>>                     <0x80600000 0x200000>;
>>> -             reg-names = "sram0", "sram1", "aisram";
>>> -             clocks = <&sysclk K210_CLK_SRAM0>,
>>> -                      <&sysclk K210_CLK_SRAM1>,
>>> -                      <&sysclk K210_CLK_AI>;
>>> -             clock-names = "sram0", "sram1", "aisram";
>>>       };
>>
>> These are used by u-boot to setup the memory clocks and initialize the
>> aisram. Sure the kernel actually does not use this, but to be in sync with
>> u-boot DT, I would prefer keeping this as is. Right now, u-boot *and* the
>> kernel work fine with both u-boot internal DT and the kernel DT.
> 
> Right, but unfortunately that desire alone doesn't do anything about
> the dtbs_check complaints.
> 
> I guess the alternative approach of actually documenting the compatible
> would be more palatable?

Yes, I think so. That would allow keeping the fields without the DTB build
warnings.

> 
> Thanks,
> Conor.
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research