Hello Pavel,
Am 17.04.2016 um 23:55 schrieb Pavel Machek:
Hi!
Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): Node /soc/usbphy@0 has a unit name, but no reg property
I don't know who produces the warnings, but perhaps fix the tool, instead?
This warnigns poping up with new DTC compilers, introduced from dtc commit:
commit c9d9121683b35281239305e15adddfff2b462cf9 Author: Stephen Warren swarren@nvidia.com Date: Fri Feb 19 15:59:29 2016 +1100
Warn on node name unit-address presence/absence mismatch
ePAPR 1.1 section 2.2.1.1 "Node Name Requirements" specifies that any node that has a reg property must include a unit address in its name with value matching the first entry in its reg property. Conversely, if a node does not have a reg property, the node name must not include a unit address. Also allow ranges property as it is deemed valid, but ePAPR is not clear about it.
Implement a check for this. The code doesn't validate the format of the unit address; ePAPR implies this may vary from (containing bus) binding to binding, so doing so would be much more complex.
So, the DTS are wrong, and need fixing ...
@@ -9,5 +9,5 @@ #size-cells = <1>; chosen { }; aliases { };
- memory { device_type = "memory"; reg = <0 0>; };
- memory@0 { device_type = "memory"; reg = <0 0>; }; };
This does not look like an improvement to me...
@@ -128,7 +128,7 @@ compatible = "fixed-clock"; };
main_pll: main_pll {
main_pll: main_pll@40 { #address-cells = <1>; #size-cells = <0>; #clock-cells = <0>;@@ -136,7 +136,7 @@ clocks = <&osc1>; reg = <0x40>;
mpuclk: mpuclk {
mpuclk: mpuclk@48 { #clock-cells = <0>; compatible = "altr,socfpga-perip-clk"; clocks = <&main_pll>;Neither do these, actually. So we have clock at fixed addresses. Why is it wrong?
see commit message ...
@@ -742,7 +742,7 @@ reg = <0xffd05000 0x1000>; };
usbphy0: usbphy@0 {
usbphy0: usbphy { #phy-cells = <0>; compatible = "usb-nop-xceiv"; status = "okay";And this sounds like a bug waiting to happen..
Better fix would be to add the reg property .. could you help me?
bye, Heiko