| Message ID | 20200623114614.792648-4-yamada.masahiro@socionext.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [1/4] ARM: dts: uniphier: add interrupts to support card serial | expand |
On Tue, 23 Jun 2020, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > 'make ARCH=arm dtbs_check' emits the following warning: > > support-card@1,1f00000: $nodename:0: 'support-card@1,1f00000' does not match '^(bus|soc|axi|ahb|apb)(@[0-9a-f]+)?$' > > Maybe, simple-mfd could be a better fit for this device. The two should be equivalent. What do you mean by "maybe"? Does this squash the warning? Isn't the issue caused by the ','? > Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> > --- > > arch/arm/boot/dts/uniphier-support-card.dtsi | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/uniphier-support-card.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/uniphier-support-card.dtsi > index 11e46e7de7c5..eedc10cbc6e6 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/uniphier-support-card.dtsi > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/uniphier-support-card.dtsi > @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ &system_bus { > ranges = <1 0x00000000 0x42000000 0x02000000>; > > support_card: support-card@1,1f00000 { > - compatible = "simple-bus"; > + compatible = "simple-mfd"; > #address-cells = <1>; > #size-cells = <1>; > ranges = <0x00000000 1 0x01f00000 0x00100000>; -- Lee Jones [李琼斯] Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 9:24 PM Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Tue, 23 Jun 2020, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > > 'make ARCH=arm dtbs_check' emits the following warning: > > > > support-card@1,1f00000: $nodename:0: 'support-card@1,1f00000' does not match '^(bus|soc|axi|ahb|apb)(@[0-9a-f]+)?$' > > > > Maybe, simple-mfd could be a better fit for this device. > > The two should be equivalent. Yes, I know. That's why I can change "simple-bus" to "simple-mfd" with no risk. The difference is schema-check. The node name for "simple-bus" is checked by 'make dtbs_check'. See this code: https://github.com/robherring/dt-schema/blob/v2020.05/schemas/simple-bus.yaml#L17 Even if I rename the node, it does not accept the unit name '1,1f00000' > > What do you mean by "maybe"? Does this squash the warning? "maybe" means I am not quite sure which compatible is a better fit to describe this device. As mentioned above, simple-bus and simple-mfd are interchangeable from a driver point of view. This add-on board is integrated with various peripherals such as 16550a serial, smsc9115 ether etc. The address-decode is implemented in a CPLD device. It has chip selects and local addresses, which are mapped to the parent. It can be either simple-bus or simple-mfd, I think. dt-schema checks the node name of simple-bus. Currently, there is no check for simple-mfd. So, I think this patch is an easy solution to fix the warning. Rob is in Cc. Please add comments if any. > > Isn't the issue caused by the ','? Right. The node name of simple-bus must meet the regular expression: "^(bus|soc|axi|ahb|apb)(@[0-9a-f]+)?$" Even if I rename the node "support-card@1,1f00000" to "bus@1,1f00000", the warning is still displayed due to ',' "1,1f00000" means the address 0x01f00000 of chip select 1. Thanks > > > Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> > > --- > > > > arch/arm/boot/dts/uniphier-support-card.dtsi | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/uniphier-support-card.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/uniphier-support-card.dtsi > > index 11e46e7de7c5..eedc10cbc6e6 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/uniphier-support-card.dtsi > > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/uniphier-support-card.dtsi > > @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ &system_bus { > > ranges = <1 0x00000000 0x42000000 0x02000000>; > > > > support_card: support-card@1,1f00000 { > > - compatible = "simple-bus"; > > + compatible = "simple-mfd"; > > #address-cells = <1>; > > #size-cells = <1>; > > ranges = <0x00000000 1 0x01f00000 0x00100000>; > > -- > Lee Jones [李琼斯] > Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services > Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs > Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
On Thu, 25 Jun 2020, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 9:24 PM Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 23 Jun 2020, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > > > > 'make ARCH=arm dtbs_check' emits the following warning: > > > > > > support-card@1,1f00000: $nodename:0: 'support-card@1,1f00000' does not match '^(bus|soc|axi|ahb|apb)(@[0-9a-f]+)?$' > > > > > > Maybe, simple-mfd could be a better fit for this device. > > > > The two should be equivalent. > > Yes, I know. > That's why I can change "simple-bus" to "simple-mfd" > with no risk. > > The difference is schema-check. > > The node name for "simple-bus" is checked by 'make dtbs_check'. > > See this code: > https://github.com/robherring/dt-schema/blob/v2020.05/schemas/simple-bus.yaml#L17 > > Even if I rename the node, it does not accept the > unit name '1,1f00000' > > > What do you mean by "maybe"? Does this squash the warning? > > "maybe" means I am not quite sure > which compatible is a better fit > to describe this device. > > As mentioned above, simple-bus and simple-mfd > are interchangeable from a driver point of view. > > This add-on board is integrated with various peripherals > such as 16550a serial, smsc9115 ether etc. > The address-decode is implemented in a CPLD device. > It has chip selects and local addresses, which are mapped to > the parent. > > It can be either simple-bus or simple-mfd, I think. > > > dt-schema checks the node name of simple-bus. > Currently, there is no check for simple-mfd. > > So, I think this patch is an easy solution > to fix the warning. Yes, looking at the documentation it seems as though 'simple-mfd' would be a better fit. Is the device a single IP with various different functions? > Rob is in Cc. Please add comments if any. > > > Isn't the issue caused by the ','? > > Right. > > The node name of simple-bus > must meet the regular expression: > "^(bus|soc|axi|ahb|apb)(@[0-9a-f]+)?$" > > > Even if I rename the node > "support-card@1,1f00000" > to "bus@1,1f00000", the warning is still > displayed due to ',' > > "1,1f00000" means > the address 0x01f00000 of chip select 1. Is this an officially accepted format? -- Lee Jones [李琼斯] Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 3:16 AM Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Thu, 25 Jun 2020, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 9:24 PM Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 23 Jun 2020, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > > > > > > 'make ARCH=arm dtbs_check' emits the following warning: > > > > > > > > support-card@1,1f00000: $nodename:0: 'support-card@1,1f00000' does not match '^(bus|soc|axi|ahb|apb)(@[0-9a-f]+)?$' > > > > > > > > Maybe, simple-mfd could be a better fit for this device. > > > > > > The two should be equivalent. > > > > Yes, I know. > > That's why I can change "simple-bus" to "simple-mfd" > > with no risk. > > > > The difference is schema-check. > > > > The node name for "simple-bus" is checked by 'make dtbs_check'. > > > > See this code: > > https://github.com/robherring/dt-schema/blob/v2020.05/schemas/simple-bus.yaml#L17 > > > > Even if I rename the node, it does not accept the > > unit name '1,1f00000' > > > > > What do you mean by "maybe"? Does this squash the warning? > > > > "maybe" means I am not quite sure > > which compatible is a better fit > > to describe this device. > > > > As mentioned above, simple-bus and simple-mfd > > are interchangeable from a driver point of view. > > > > This add-on board is integrated with various peripherals > > such as 16550a serial, smsc9115 ether etc. > > The address-decode is implemented in a CPLD device. > > It has chip selects and local addresses, which are mapped to > > the parent. > > > > It can be either simple-bus or simple-mfd, I think. > > > > > > dt-schema checks the node name of simple-bus. > > Currently, there is no check for simple-mfd. > > > > So, I think this patch is an easy solution > > to fix the warning. > > Yes, looking at the documentation it seems as though 'simple-mfd' > would be a better fit. Is the device a single IP with various > different functions? Not an IP. This is a small board that consists of a CPLD + ethernet controller + serial controller + LED, etc. > > > Rob is in Cc. Please add comments if any. > > > > > Isn't the issue caused by the ','? > > > > Right. > > > > The node name of simple-bus > > must meet the regular expression: > > "^(bus|soc|axi|ahb|apb)(@[0-9a-f]+)?$" > > > > > > Even if I rename the node > > "support-card@1,1f00000" > > to "bus@1,1f00000", the warning is still > > displayed due to ',' > > > > "1,1f00000" means > > the address 0x01f00000 of chip select 1. > > Is this an officially accepted format? I am not sure if it is official. Rob said the data fields should be separated by commas. https://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree/msg201565.html -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
On Thu, 25 Jun 2020, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 3:16 AM Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 25 Jun 2020, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 9:24 PM Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, 23 Jun 2020, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > > > > > > > > 'make ARCH=arm dtbs_check' emits the following warning: > > > > > > > > > > support-card@1,1f00000: $nodename:0: 'support-card@1,1f00000' does not match '^(bus|soc|axi|ahb|apb)(@[0-9a-f]+)?$' > > > > > > > > > > Maybe, simple-mfd could be a better fit for this device. > > > > > > > > The two should be equivalent. > > > > > > Yes, I know. > > > That's why I can change "simple-bus" to "simple-mfd" > > > with no risk. > > > > > > The difference is schema-check. > > > > > > The node name for "simple-bus" is checked by 'make dtbs_check'. > > > > > > See this code: > > > https://github.com/robherring/dt-schema/blob/v2020.05/schemas/simple-bus.yaml#L17 > > > > > > Even if I rename the node, it does not accept the > > > unit name '1,1f00000' > > > > > > > What do you mean by "maybe"? Does this squash the warning? > > > > > > "maybe" means I am not quite sure > > > which compatible is a better fit > > > to describe this device. > > > > > > As mentioned above, simple-bus and simple-mfd > > > are interchangeable from a driver point of view. > > > > > > This add-on board is integrated with various peripherals > > > such as 16550a serial, smsc9115 ether etc. > > > The address-decode is implemented in a CPLD device. > > > It has chip selects and local addresses, which are mapped to > > > the parent. > > > > > > It can be either simple-bus or simple-mfd, I think. > > > > > > > > > dt-schema checks the node name of simple-bus. > > > Currently, there is no check for simple-mfd. > > > > > > So, I think this patch is an easy solution > > > to fix the warning. > > > > Yes, looking at the documentation it seems as though 'simple-mfd' > > would be a better fit. Is the device a single IP with various > > different functions? > > Not an IP. > > This is a small board that consists of > a CPLD + ethernet controller + serial controller + LED, etc. Then simple MFD does not seem like a good fit. Neither does 'simple-bus'. What is it you're trying to describe in the device hierarchy? > > > Rob is in Cc. Please add comments if any. > > > > > > > Isn't the issue caused by the ','? > > > > > > Right. > > > > > > The node name of simple-bus > > > must meet the regular expression: > > > "^(bus|soc|axi|ahb|apb)(@[0-9a-f]+)?$" > > > > > > > > > Even if I rename the node > > > "support-card@1,1f00000" > > > to "bus@1,1f00000", the warning is still > > > displayed due to ',' > > > > > > "1,1f00000" means > > > the address 0x01f00000 of chip select 1. > > > > Is this an officially accepted format? > > I am not sure if it is official. > > Rob said the data fields should be separated by commas. > https://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree/msg201565.html Are you sure he doesn't mean in the 'reg' property. Rather than the node-name@NNNNNNNN syntax. BTW, I think the error you link to above is related to the node-name@NNNNNNNN not matching the value listed in the 'reg' property. -- Lee Jones [李琼斯] Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 11:57 PM Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Thu, 25 Jun 2020, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 3:16 AM Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 25 Jun 2020, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 9:24 PM Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 23 Jun 2020, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > 'make ARCH=arm dtbs_check' emits the following warning: > > > > > > > > > > > > support-card@1,1f00000: $nodename:0: 'support-card@1,1f00000' does not match '^(bus|soc|axi|ahb|apb)(@[0-9a-f]+)?$' > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe, simple-mfd could be a better fit for this device. > > > > > > > > > > The two should be equivalent. > > > > > > > > Yes, I know. > > > > That's why I can change "simple-bus" to "simple-mfd" > > > > with no risk. > > > > > > > > The difference is schema-check. > > > > > > > > The node name for "simple-bus" is checked by 'make dtbs_check'. > > > > > > > > See this code: > > > > https://github.com/robherring/dt-schema/blob/v2020.05/schemas/simple-bus.yaml#L17 > > > > > > > > Even if I rename the node, it does not accept the > > > > unit name '1,1f00000' > > > > > > > > > What do you mean by "maybe"? Does this squash the warning? > > > > > > > > "maybe" means I am not quite sure > > > > which compatible is a better fit > > > > to describe this device. > > > > > > > > As mentioned above, simple-bus and simple-mfd > > > > are interchangeable from a driver point of view. > > > > > > > > This add-on board is integrated with various peripherals > > > > such as 16550a serial, smsc9115 ether etc. > > > > The address-decode is implemented in a CPLD device. > > > > It has chip selects and local addresses, which are mapped to > > > > the parent. > > > > > > > > It can be either simple-bus or simple-mfd, I think. > > > > > > > > > > > > dt-schema checks the node name of simple-bus. > > > > Currently, there is no check for simple-mfd. > > > > > > > > So, I think this patch is an easy solution > > > > to fix the warning. > > > > > > Yes, looking at the documentation it seems as though 'simple-mfd' > > > would be a better fit. Is the device a single IP with various > > > different functions? > > > > Not an IP. > > > > This is a small board that consists of > > a CPLD + ethernet controller + serial controller + LED, etc. > > Then simple MFD does not seem like a good fit. > > Neither does 'simple-bus'. Then, I do not know what to do. This board connection is so simple that no hardware initialization needed to get access to peripherals. So, 'simple-bus' or 'simple-mfd' is preferred. If this is not either simple-bus or simple-mfd, I need a special driver to probe the child devices such as ethernet, serial etc. > What is it you're trying to describe in the device hierarchy? The connection is as follows: |-Main board -| |----- add-on board ----| | | | (this board) | | | | | | (SoC) ---|------|--- CPLD --- ethernet | | | | |- serial | |-------------| | |- LED | | | |-----------------------| uniphier-support-card.dtsi describes the "add-on board" part. Address-decode is implemented in CPLD. So, the criteria to become MFD is whether it is an IP integrated into SoC. - implemented in an SoC --> MFD - implemented in a board + CPLD --> not MFD Right? > > > > > Rob is in Cc. Please add comments if any. > > > > > > > > > Isn't the issue caused by the ','? > > > > > > > > Right. > > > > > > > > The node name of simple-bus > > > > must meet the regular expression: > > > > "^(bus|soc|axi|ahb|apb)(@[0-9a-f]+)?$" > > > > > > > > > > > > Even if I rename the node > > > > "support-card@1,1f00000" > > > > to "bus@1,1f00000", the warning is still > > > > displayed due to ',' > > > > > > > > "1,1f00000" means > > > > the address 0x01f00000 of chip select 1. > > > > > > Is this an officially accepted format? > > > > I am not sure if it is official. > > > > Rob said the data fields should be separated by commas. > > https://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree/msg201565.html > > Are you sure he doesn't mean in the 'reg' property. > > Rather than the node-name@NNNNNNNN syntax. > > BTW, I think the error you link to above is related to the > node-name@NNNNNNNN not matching the value listed in the 'reg' > property. If I get rid of @NNNNNNNN part, DTC warns the following for W=1 builds: arch/arm/boot/dts/uniphier-support-card.dtsi:12.29-32.4: Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): /soc/system-bus@58c00000/support-card: node has a reg or ranges property, but no unit name So, 'reg' or 'range' requires a unit name. A unit name should be a base address. If it has a chip select, the format is <chip-select>,<base-address> But the schema does not allow commas in a unit name of simple-bus. This is the problem I am trying to do something for. > > -- > Lee Jones [李琼斯] > Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services > Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs > Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
On Mon, 29 Jun 2020, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 11:57 PM Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 25 Jun 2020, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 3:16 AM Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, 25 Jun 2020, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 9:24 PM Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 23 Jun 2020, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'make ARCH=arm dtbs_check' emits the following warning: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support-card@1,1f00000: $nodename:0: 'support-card@1,1f00000' does not match '^(bus|soc|axi|ahb|apb)(@[0-9a-f]+)?$' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe, simple-mfd could be a better fit for this device. > > > > > > > > > > > > The two should be equivalent. > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I know. > > > > > That's why I can change "simple-bus" to "simple-mfd" > > > > > with no risk. > > > > > > > > > > The difference is schema-check. > > > > > > > > > > The node name for "simple-bus" is checked by 'make dtbs_check'. > > > > > > > > > > See this code: > > > > > https://github.com/robherring/dt-schema/blob/v2020.05/schemas/simple-bus.yaml#L17 > > > > > > > > > > Even if I rename the node, it does not accept the > > > > > unit name '1,1f00000' > > > > > > > > > > > What do you mean by "maybe"? Does this squash the warning? > > > > > > > > > > "maybe" means I am not quite sure > > > > > which compatible is a better fit > > > > > to describe this device. > > > > > > > > > > As mentioned above, simple-bus and simple-mfd > > > > > are interchangeable from a driver point of view. > > > > > > > > > > This add-on board is integrated with various peripherals > > > > > such as 16550a serial, smsc9115 ether etc. > > > > > The address-decode is implemented in a CPLD device. > > > > > It has chip selects and local addresses, which are mapped to > > > > > the parent. > > > > > > > > > > It can be either simple-bus or simple-mfd, I think. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dt-schema checks the node name of simple-bus. > > > > > Currently, there is no check for simple-mfd. > > > > > > > > > > So, I think this patch is an easy solution > > > > > to fix the warning. > > > > > > > > Yes, looking at the documentation it seems as though 'simple-mfd' > > > > would be a better fit. Is the device a single IP with various > > > > different functions? > > > > > > Not an IP. > > > > > > This is a small board that consists of > > > a CPLD + ethernet controller + serial controller + LED, etc. > > > > Then simple MFD does not seem like a good fit. > > > > Neither does 'simple-bus'. > > Then, I do not know what to do. > > > This board connection is so simple > that no hardware initialization needed to get access > to peripherals. > > So, 'simple-bus' or 'simple-mfd' is preferred. > > If this is not either simple-bus or simple-mfd, > I need a special driver to probe the > child devices such as ethernet, serial etc. > > > > > What is it you're trying to describe in the device hierarchy? > > > The connection is as follows: > > > |-Main board -| |----- add-on board ----| > | | | (this board) | > | | | | > | (SoC) ---|------|--- CPLD --- ethernet | > | | | |- serial | > |-------------| | |- LED | > | | > |-----------------------| > > > > uniphier-support-card.dtsi describes the > "add-on board" part. > Address-decode is implemented in CPLD. > > > So, the criteria to become MFD is > whether it is an IP integrated into SoC. > > > - implemented in an SoC --> MFD If s/in an SoC/in a single piece of silicon/ ... then yes. > - implemented in a board + CPLD --> not MFD > > Right? Right. Unless all H/W is represented inside the CPLD, in which case the CPLD is, in theory, the MFD. Although, due to the nature of CPLDs, this is a slippery slope. You may want something like: arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399-roc-pc-mezzanine.dts ... where the add-on board is represented separately (not in the same hierarchical structure as the main board. The main board is then included as a DTSI from the add-on board. It might also be worth looking at how consumer boards such as the RaspberryPi, BeagleBoard and the like handle their add-on boards, mezzanines, capes, hats, etc. -- Lee Jones [李琼斯] Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
On Mon, 29 Jun 2020, Lee Jones wrote: > On Mon, 29 Jun 2020, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 11:57 PM Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 25 Jun 2020, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 3:16 AM Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 25 Jun 2020, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 9:24 PM Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 23 Jun 2020, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'make ARCH=arm dtbs_check' emits the following warning: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support-card@1,1f00000: $nodename:0: 'support-card@1,1f00000' does not match '^(bus|soc|axi|ahb|apb)(@[0-9a-f]+)?$' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe, simple-mfd could be a better fit for this device. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The two should be equivalent. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I know. > > > > > > That's why I can change "simple-bus" to "simple-mfd" > > > > > > with no risk. > > > > > > > > > > > > The difference is schema-check. > > > > > > > > > > > > The node name for "simple-bus" is checked by 'make dtbs_check'. > > > > > > > > > > > > See this code: > > > > > > https://github.com/robherring/dt-schema/blob/v2020.05/schemas/simple-bus.yaml#L17 > > > > > > > > > > > > Even if I rename the node, it does not accept the > > > > > > unit name '1,1f00000' > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you mean by "maybe"? Does this squash the warning? > > > > > > > > > > > > "maybe" means I am not quite sure > > > > > > which compatible is a better fit > > > > > > to describe this device. > > > > > > > > > > > > As mentioned above, simple-bus and simple-mfd > > > > > > are interchangeable from a driver point of view. > > > > > > > > > > > > This add-on board is integrated with various peripherals > > > > > > such as 16550a serial, smsc9115 ether etc. > > > > > > The address-decode is implemented in a CPLD device. > > > > > > It has chip selects and local addresses, which are mapped to > > > > > > the parent. > > > > > > > > > > > > It can be either simple-bus or simple-mfd, I think. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dt-schema checks the node name of simple-bus. > > > > > > Currently, there is no check for simple-mfd. > > > > > > > > > > > > So, I think this patch is an easy solution > > > > > > to fix the warning. > > > > > > > > > > Yes, looking at the documentation it seems as though 'simple-mfd' > > > > > would be a better fit. Is the device a single IP with various > > > > > different functions? > > > > > > > > Not an IP. > > > > > > > > This is a small board that consists of > > > > a CPLD + ethernet controller + serial controller + LED, etc. > > > > > > Then simple MFD does not seem like a good fit. > > > > > > Neither does 'simple-bus'. > > > > Then, I do not know what to do. > > > > > > This board connection is so simple > > that no hardware initialization needed to get access > > to peripherals. > > > > So, 'simple-bus' or 'simple-mfd' is preferred. > > > > If this is not either simple-bus or simple-mfd, > > I need a special driver to probe the > > child devices such as ethernet, serial etc. > > > > > > > > > What is it you're trying to describe in the device hierarchy? > > > > > > The connection is as follows: > > > > > > |-Main board -| |----- add-on board ----| > > | | | (this board) | > > | | | | > > | (SoC) ---|------|--- CPLD --- ethernet | > > | | | |- serial | > > |-------------| | |- LED | > > | | > > |-----------------------| > > > > > > > > uniphier-support-card.dtsi describes the > > "add-on board" part. > > Address-decode is implemented in CPLD. > > > > > > So, the criteria to become MFD is > > whether it is an IP integrated into SoC. > > > > > > - implemented in an SoC --> MFD > > If > > s/in an SoC/in a single piece of silicon/ > > ... then yes. > > > - implemented in a board + CPLD --> not MFD > > > > Right? > > Right. Unless all H/W is represented inside the CPLD, in which case > the CPLD is, in theory, the MFD. Although, due to the nature of > CPLDs, this is a slippery slope. > > You may want something like: > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399-roc-pc-mezzanine.dts > > ... where the add-on board is represented separately (not in the > same hierarchical structure as the main board. The main board is then > included as a DTSI from the add-on board. > > It might also be worth looking at how consumer boards such as the > RaspberryPi, BeagleBoard and the like handle their add-on boards, > mezzanines, capes, hats, etc. Another option; if the add-on board PCB really doesn't do anything except provide some copper lines to the on-board components, then does it need representing in Device Tree at all? I suggest not. Your issue will come when you want to swap out that board and insert another, which contains different functionality. This is why it would be better to represent the whole board as an orthogonal *.dts file. Whether you decide to lay it out as it's own board (as above) or as children to the system-bus will be up to you. -- Lee Jones [李琼斯] Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/uniphier-support-card.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/uniphier-support-card.dtsi index 11e46e7de7c5..eedc10cbc6e6 100644 --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/uniphier-support-card.dtsi +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/uniphier-support-card.dtsi @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ &system_bus { ranges = <1 0x00000000 0x42000000 0x02000000>; support_card: support-card@1,1f00000 { - compatible = "simple-bus"; + compatible = "simple-mfd"; #address-cells = <1>; #size-cells = <1>; ranges = <0x00000000 1 0x01f00000 0x00100000>;
'make ARCH=arm dtbs_check' emits the following warning: support-card@1,1f00000: $nodename:0: 'support-card@1,1f00000' does not match '^(bus|soc|axi|ahb|apb)(@[0-9a-f]+)?$' Maybe, simple-mfd could be a better fit for this device. Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> --- arch/arm/boot/dts/uniphier-support-card.dtsi | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) -- 2.25.1