Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] ARM: dts: stm32: fix several DT warnings on stm32mp15
On 5/29/23 10:07, Raphael Gallais-Pou wrote:
Hi,
I think if you retain the stm32mp151.dtsi { port { #address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <0>; }; }; part, then you wouldn't be getting any warnings
regarding LTDC , and you wouldn't have to remove the unit-address from
endpoint@0 .
btw. I do use both endpoint@0/endpoint@1 in Avenger96 DTOs, but those are not
submitted yet, I have to clean them up a bit more first.
One way to do it would be to make the endpoint@0 go down in the device-tree
with
its dependencies, so that both endpoints are the same level without generating
noise.
I'm afraid I really don't quite understand which warning you're referring to.
Can you please share that warning and ideally how to trigger it (the
command-line incantation) ?
Using '$ make dtbs W=1', you can observe several of the followings:
arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp151.dtsi:1533.9-1536.6: Warning
(avoid_unnecessary_addr_size): /soc/display-controller@5a001000/port:
unnecessary #address-cells/#size-cells without "ranges" or child "reg" property
arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp151.dtsi:1533.9-1536.6: Warning (graph_child_address):
/soc/display-controller@5a001000/port: graph node has single child node
'endpoint@0', #address-cells/#size-cells are not necessary
This { port { #address-cells = <1>; #size-cells = <0>; }; }; part is
actually annoying. This is because there is several device-trees that only got
one endpoint, and some other that includes two.
For instance: stm32mp15xx-dhcor-avenger96.dtsi vs stm32mp157c-dk2.dts.
I would like to remove to root part of address/size field and let only the lower
device-trees with with multiple endpoints handle their own fields. I hope this
explains a bit better my process.
After thinking about this some more, and digging through LTDC driver, and
testing on EV1, I think dropping the LTDC node endpoint@N and reg=
altogether and just using port/endpoint (singular) is fine.
You might want to split the DSI node specific changes and the LTDC node
specific changes into separate patches (LTDC specific change like you did in
1/3).
Yes, I prepared a new serie with that split, to that it is better to read and
review.
Thank you !
Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] ARM: dts: stm32: fix several DT warnings on stm32mp15
On 5/26/23 18:55, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 5/25/23 10:14, Raphael Gallais-Pou wrote:
>
> Hi,
Hi Marek,
>
>>> I think if you retain the stm32mp151.dtsi { port { #address-cells =
>>> <1>;
>>> #size-cells = <0>; }; }; part, then you wouldn't be getting any warnings
>>> regarding LTDC , and you wouldn't have to remove the unit-address from
>>> endpoint@0 .
>>>
>>> btw. I do use both endpoint@0/endpoint@1 in Avenger96 DTOs, but those are
>>> not
>>> submitted yet, I have to clean them up a bit more first.
>>>
One way to do it would be to make the endpoint@0 go down in the device-tree
with
its dependencies, so that both endpoints are the same level without
generating
noise.
>>>
>>> I'm afraid I really don't quite understand which warning you're referring
>>> to.
>>> Can you please share that warning and ideally how to trigger it (the
>>> command-line incantation) ?
>>
>> Using '$ make dtbs W=1', you can observe several of the followings:
>>
>> arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp151.dtsi:1533.9-1536.6: Warning
>> (avoid_unnecessary_addr_size): /soc/display-controller@5a001000/port:
>> unnecessary #address-cells/#size-cells without "ranges" or child "reg"
>> property
>> arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp151.dtsi:1533.9-1536.6: Warning
>> (graph_child_address):
>> /soc/display-controller@5a001000/port: graph node has single child node
>> 'endpoint@0', #address-cells/#size-cells are not necessary
>>
>> This { port { #address-cells = <1>; #size-cells = <0>; }; }; part is
>> actually annoying. This is because there is several device-trees that only
>> got
>> one endpoint, and some other that includes two.
>>
>> For instance: stm32mp15xx-dhcor-avenger96.dtsi vs stm32mp157c-dk2.dts.
>>
>> I would like to remove to root part of address/size field and let only the
>> lower
>> device-trees with with multiple endpoints handle their own fields. I hope
>> this
>> explains a bit better my process.
>
> After thinking about this some more, and digging through LTDC driver, and
> testing on EV1, I think dropping the LTDC node endpoint@N and reg=
> altogether and just using port/endpoint (singular) is fine.
>
> You might want to split the DSI node specific changes and the LTDC node
> specific changes into separate patches (LTDC specific change like you did in
> 1/3).
Yes, I prepared a new serie with that split, to that it is better to read and
review.
Raphaël
Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] ARM: dts: stm32: fix several DT warnings on stm32mp15
On 5/25/23 10:14, Raphael Gallais-Pou wrote:
Hi,
I think if you retain the stm32mp151.dtsi { port { #address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <0>; }; }; part, then you wouldn't be getting any warnings
regarding LTDC , and you wouldn't have to remove the unit-address from
endpoint@0 .
btw. I do use both endpoint@0/endpoint@1 in Avenger96 DTOs, but those are not
submitted yet, I have to clean them up a bit more first.
One way to do it would be to make the endpoint@0 go down in the device-tree with
its dependencies, so that both endpoints are the same level without generating
noise.
I'm afraid I really don't quite understand which warning you're referring to.
Can you please share that warning and ideally how to trigger it (the
command-line incantation) ?
Using '$ make dtbs W=1', you can observe several of the followings:
arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp151.dtsi:1533.9-1536.6: Warning
(avoid_unnecessary_addr_size): /soc/display-controller@5a001000/port:
unnecessary #address-cells/#size-cells without "ranges" or child "reg" property
arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp151.dtsi:1533.9-1536.6: Warning (graph_child_address):
/soc/display-controller@5a001000/port: graph node has single child node
'endpoint@0', #address-cells/#size-cells are not necessary
This { port { #address-cells = <1>; #size-cells = <0>; }; }; part is
actually annoying. This is because there is several device-trees that only got
one endpoint, and some other that includes two.
For instance: stm32mp15xx-dhcor-avenger96.dtsi vs stm32mp157c-dk2.dts.
I would like to remove to root part of address/size field and let only the lower
device-trees with with multiple endpoints handle their own fields. I hope this
explains a bit better my process.
After thinking about this some more, and digging through LTDC driver,
and testing on EV1, I think dropping the LTDC node endpoint@N and
reg= altogether and just using port/endpoint (singular) is fine.
You might want to split the DSI node specific changes and the LTDC node
specific changes into separate patches (LTDC specific change like you
did in 1/3).
Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] ARM: dts: stm32: fix several DT warnings on stm32mp15
On 5/18/23 01:33, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 5/17/23 19:04, Raphael Gallais-Pou wrote:
>> Hi Marek
>
> Hi,
>
>> On 5/17/23 17:41, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>> On 5/17/23 16:35, Raphael Gallais-Pou wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp15xx-dkx.dtsi
b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp15xx-dkx.dtsi
index 0f1110e42c93..a6e2e20f12fa 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp15xx-dkx.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp15xx-dkx.dtsi
@@ -457,8 +457,7 @@ {
status = "okay";
port {
- ltdc_ep0_out: endpoint@0 {
- reg = <0>;
+ ltdc_ep0_out: endpoint {
remote-endpoint = <_in>;
};
};
>>>
>>> This LTDC port/endpoint stuff always scares me, because I always feel I get
>>> it
>>> wrong.
>>>
>>> I believe the LTDC does have one "port" , correct.
>>>
>>> But I think (?) that the LTDC has two endpoints, endpoint@0 for DPI
>>> (parallel
>>> output out of the SoC) and endpoint@1 for DSI (internal connection into the
>>> DSI serializer) ?
>>
>> You are correct indeed, I rushed the patch and did not thought about this. I
>> agree that this can be confusing, as I also take some time to think through
>> it.
>>
>>>
>>> Only one of the endpoints can be connected at a time, but there are actually
>>> two endpoints in the LTDC port {} node, aren't there ?
>> Yes, they are mutually exclusive.
>>>
>>> So the original description should be OK I think , maybe
>>> #address/#size-cells
>>> are missing instead ?
>>
>> Thing is: this file is only included in two device-trees :
>> stm32mp157c-dk1.dts
>> and stm32mp157c-dk2.dts.
>>
>> Among those two files there is only one which adds a second endpoint. Thus if
>> the fields are set higher in the hierarchy, a warning yields.
>
> I do not understand this one part, which warning are you trying to fix ?
> I just ran '$ make CHECK_DTBS=1 stm32mp157a-dk1.dtb stm32mp157c-dk2.dtb' in
> latest linux-next and there was no warning related to LTDC .
I'm sorry, I looked back at it and my explanations are confusing.
I use Alex Torgue's tree, and I'm based on the next branch, but linux-next
should be the same I just checked it.
>
> I think if you retain the stm32mp151.dtsi { port { #address-cells = <1>;
> #size-cells = <0>; }; }; part, then you wouldn't be getting any warnings
> regarding LTDC , and you wouldn't have to remove the unit-address from
> endpoint@0 .
>
> btw. I do use both endpoint@0/endpoint@1 in Avenger96 DTOs, but those are not
> submitted yet, I have to clean them up a bit more first.
>
>> One way to do it would be to make the endpoint@0 go down in the device-tree
>> with
>> its dependencies, so that both endpoints are the same level without
>> generating
>> noise.
>
> I'm afraid I really don't quite understand which warning you're referring to.
> Can you please share that warning and ideally how to trigger it (the
> command-line incantation) ?
Using '$ make dtbs W=1', you can observe several of the followings:
arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp151.dtsi:1533.9-1536.6: Warning
(avoid_unnecessary_addr_size): /soc/display-controller@5a001000/port:
unnecessary #address-cells/#size-cells without "ranges" or child "reg" property
arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp151.dtsi:1533.9-1536.6: Warning (graph_child_address):
/soc/display-controller@5a001000/port: graph node has single child node
'endpoint@0', #address-cells/#size-cells are not necessary
This { port { #address-cells = <1>; #size-cells = <0>; }; }; part is
actually annoying. This is because there is several device-trees that only got
one endpoint, and some other that includes two.
For instance: stm32mp15xx-dhcor-avenger96.dtsi vs stm32mp157c-dk2.dts.
I would like to remove to root part of address/size field and let only the lower
device-trees with with multiple endpoints handle their own fields. I hope this
explains a bit better my process.
Regards,
Raphaël Gallais-Pou
Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] ARM: dts: stm32: fix several DT warnings on stm32mp15
On 5/17/23 19:04, Raphael Gallais-Pou wrote:
Hi Marek
Hi,
On 5/17/23 17:41, Marek Vasut wrote:
On 5/17/23 16:35, Raphael Gallais-Pou wrote:
Hi,
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp15xx-dkx.dtsi
b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp15xx-dkx.dtsi
index 0f1110e42c93..a6e2e20f12fa 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp15xx-dkx.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp15xx-dkx.dtsi
@@ -457,8 +457,7 @@ {
status = "okay";
port {
- ltdc_ep0_out: endpoint@0 {
- reg = <0>;
+ ltdc_ep0_out: endpoint {
remote-endpoint = <_in>;
};
};
This LTDC port/endpoint stuff always scares me, because I always feel I get it
wrong.
I believe the LTDC does have one "port" , correct.
But I think (?) that the LTDC has two endpoints, endpoint@0 for DPI (parallel
output out of the SoC) and endpoint@1 for DSI (internal connection into the
DSI serializer) ?
You are correct indeed, I rushed the patch and did not thought about this. I
agree that this can be confusing, as I also take some time to think through it.
Only one of the endpoints can be connected at a time, but there are actually
two endpoints in the LTDC port {} node, aren't there ?
Yes, they are mutually exclusive.
So the original description should be OK I think , maybe #address/#size-cells
are missing instead ?
Thing is: this file is only included in two device-trees : stm32mp157c-dk1.dts
and stm32mp157c-dk2.dts.
Among those two files there is only one which adds a second endpoint. Thus if
the fields are set higher in the hierarchy, a warning yields.
I do not understand this one part, which warning are you trying to fix ?
I just ran '$ make CHECK_DTBS=1 stm32mp157a-dk1.dtb stm32mp157c-dk2.dtb'
in latest linux-next and there was no warning related to LTDC .
I think if you retain the stm32mp151.dtsi { port { #address-cells
= <1>; #size-cells = <0>; }; }; part, then you wouldn't be getting any
warnings regarding LTDC , and you wouldn't have to remove the
unit-address from endpoint@0 .
btw. I do use both endpoint@0/endpoint@1 in Avenger96 DTOs, but those
are not submitted yet, I have to clean them up a bit more first.
One way to do it would be to make the endpoint@0 go down in the device-tree with
its dependencies, so that both endpoints are the same level without generating
noise.
I'm afraid I really don't quite understand which warning you're
referring to. Can you please share that warning and ideally how to
trigger it (the command-line incantation) ?
--
Best regards,
Marek Vasut
Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] ARM: dts: stm32: fix several DT warnings on stm32mp15
Hi Marek
On 5/17/23 17:41, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 5/17/23 16:35, Raphael Gallais-Pou wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp15xx-dkx.dtsi
>> b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp15xx-dkx.dtsi
>> index 0f1110e42c93..a6e2e20f12fa 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp15xx-dkx.dtsi
>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp15xx-dkx.dtsi
>> @@ -457,8 +457,7 @@ {
>> status = "okay";
>> port {
>> - ltdc_ep0_out: endpoint@0 {
>> - reg = <0>;
>> + ltdc_ep0_out: endpoint {
>> remote-endpoint = <_in>;
>> };
>> };
>
> This LTDC port/endpoint stuff always scares me, because I always feel I get it
> wrong.
>
> I believe the LTDC does have one "port" , correct.
>
> But I think (?) that the LTDC has two endpoints, endpoint@0 for DPI (parallel
> output out of the SoC) and endpoint@1 for DSI (internal connection into the
> DSI serializer) ?
You are correct indeed, I rushed the patch and did not thought about this. I
agree that this can be confusing, as I also take some time to think through it.
>
> Only one of the endpoints can be connected at a time, but there are actually
> two endpoints in the LTDC port {} node, aren't there ?
Yes, they are mutually exclusive.
>
> So the original description should be OK I think , maybe #address/#size-cells
> are missing instead ?
Thing is: this file is only included in two device-trees : stm32mp157c-dk1.dts
and stm32mp157c-dk2.dts.
Among those two files there is only one which adds a second endpoint. Thus if
the fields are set higher in the hierarchy, a warning yields.
One way to do it would be to make the endpoint@0 go down in the device-tree with
its dependencies, so that both endpoints are the same level without generating
noise.
Raphaël
Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] ARM: dts: stm32: fix several DT warnings on stm32mp15
On 5/17/23 16:35, Raphael Gallais-Pou wrote:
Hi,
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp15xx-dkx.dtsi
b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp15xx-dkx.dtsi
index 0f1110e42c93..a6e2e20f12fa 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp15xx-dkx.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp15xx-dkx.dtsi
@@ -457,8 +457,7 @@ {
status = "okay";
port {
- ltdc_ep0_out: endpoint@0 {
- reg = <0>;
+ ltdc_ep0_out: endpoint {
remote-endpoint = <_in>;
};
};
This LTDC port/endpoint stuff always scares me, because I always feel I
get it wrong.
I believe the LTDC does have one "port" , correct.
But I think (?) that the LTDC has two endpoints, endpoint@0 for DPI
(parallel output out of the SoC) and endpoint@1 for DSI (internal
connection into the DSI serializer) ?
Only one of the endpoints can be connected at a time, but there are
actually two endpoints in the LTDC port {} node, aren't there ?
So the original description should be OK I think , maybe
#address/#size-cells are missing instead ?
[PATCH v3 3/3] ARM: dts: stm32: fix several DT warnings on stm32mp15
Several warnings regarding LTDC and DSI on stm32mp15* device-trees remains.
Those concern:
* "#size-cells" and "#address-cells" wrongly used
* residual "reg" property appearing on endpoints where it could be
avoided
* Changed 'panel-dsi@0' to 'panel@0' according to dsi-controller.yaml
Signed-off-by: Raphael Gallais-Pou
---
arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp151.dtsi | 5 -
arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157.dtsi | 7 ---
.../dts/stm32mp157a-icore-stm32mp1-ctouch2-of10.dts| 6 --
.../boot/dts/stm32mp157a-icore-stm32mp1-edimm2.2.dts | 6 --
.../stm32mp157a-microgea-stm32mp1-microdev2.0-of7.dts | 3 +--
arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157c-dk2.dts | 8
arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157c-ev1.dts | 10 +++---
arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157c-lxa-mc1.dts | 3 +--
arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp15xx-dhcor-avenger96.dtsi | 6 +-
arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp15xx-dkx.dtsi | 3 +--
10 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp151.dtsi
b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp151.dtsi
index a98ae58e2c1c..bf3830dca742 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp151.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp151.dtsi
@@ -1529,11 +1529,6 @@ ltdc: display-controller@5a001000 {
clock-names = "lcd";
resets = < LTDC_R>;
status = "disabled";
-
- port {
- #address-cells = <1>;
- #size-cells = <0>;
- };
};
iwdg2: watchdog@5a002000 {
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157.dtsi
b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157.dtsi
index 54e73ccea446..5e733cd16ff9 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157.dtsi
@@ -24,14 +24,7 @@ dsi: dsi@5a00 {
clock-names = "pclk", "ref", "px_clk";
resets = < DSI_R>;
reset-names = "apb";
- #address-cells = <1>;
- #size-cells = <0>;
status = "disabled";
-
- ports {
- #address-cells = <1>;
- #size-cells = <0>;
- };
};
};
};
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157a-icore-stm32mp1-ctouch2-of10.dts
b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157a-icore-stm32mp1-ctouch2-of10.dts
index 9a2a4bc7d079..4279b26547df 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157a-icore-stm32mp1-ctouch2-of10.dts
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157a-icore-stm32mp1-ctouch2-of10.dts
@@ -49,6 +49,9 @@ {
phy-dsi-supply = <>;
ports {
+ #address-cells = <1>;
+ #size-cells = <0>;
+
port@0 {
reg = <0>;
dsi_in: endpoint {
@@ -104,8 +107,7 @@ {
status = "okay";
port {
- ltdc_ep0_out: endpoint@0 {
- reg = <0>;
+ ltdc_ep0_out: endpoint {
remote-endpoint = <_in>;
};
};
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157a-icore-stm32mp1-edimm2.2.dts
b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157a-icore-stm32mp1-edimm2.2.dts
index 390ee8c05754..efba54289820 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157a-icore-stm32mp1-edimm2.2.dts
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157a-icore-stm32mp1-edimm2.2.dts
@@ -49,6 +49,9 @@ {
phy-dsi-supply = <>;
ports {
+ #address-cells = <1>;
+ #size-cells = <0>;
+
port@0 {
reg = <0>;
dsi_in_ltdc: endpoint {
@@ -104,8 +107,7 @@ {
status = "okay";
port {
- ltdc_out_dsi: endpoint@0 {
- reg = <0>;
+ ltdc_out_dsi: endpoint {
remote-endpoint = <_in_ltdc>;
};
};
diff --git
a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157a-microgea-stm32mp1-microdev2.0-of7.dts
b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157a-microgea-stm32mp1-microdev2.0-of7.dts
index 0d7560ba2950..5116a7785201 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157a-microgea-stm32mp1-microdev2.0-of7.dts
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157a-microgea-stm32mp1-microdev2.0-of7.dts
@@ -81,8 +81,7 @@ {
status = "okay";
port {
- ltdc_ep0_out: endpoint@0 {
- reg = <0>;
+ ltdc_ep0_out: endpoint {
remote-endpoint = <_in>;
};
};
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157c-dk2.dts
b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157c-dk2.dts
index ab13e340f4ef..4bef2300ed7c 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157c-dk2.dts
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157c-dk2.dts
@@ -31,10 +31,15 @@ {
};
{
+ #address-cells = <1>;
+ #size-cells = <0>;
status =
