Hi David,
Thanks for your feedback.
On 2025-08-16 14:45:58 +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 06:51:22PM +0200, Niklas Söderlund wrote:
> > The dtc graph_child_address check can't distinguish between bindings
> > where there can only be a single endpoint, and cases where there can be
> > multiple endpoints.
> >
> > In cases where the bindings allow for multiple endpoints but only one is
> > described false warnings about unnecessary #address-cells/#size-cells
> > can be generated, but only if the endpoint described have an address of
> > 0 (A), for single endpoints with a non-zero address (B) no warnings are
> > generated.
> >
> > A)
> > ports {
> > #address-cells = <1>;
> > #size-cells = <0>;
> >
> > port@0 {
> > #address-cells = <1>;
> > #size-cells = <0>;
> >
> > sourceA: endpoint@0 {
> > reg = <0>
> > };
> > };
> > };
> >
> > B)
> > ports {
> > #address-cells = <1>;
> > #size-cells = <0>;
> >
> > port@0 {
> > #address-cells = <1>;
> > #size-cells = <0>;
> >
> > sourceB: endpoint@1 {
> > reg = <1>
> > };
> > };
> > };
> >
> > Remove the check as it is somewhat redundant now that we can use schemas
> > to validate the full node.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Niklas Söderlund
> > <niklas.soderlund+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> This causes test suite failures. You'll need to also remove the
> explicit graph_child_address test from the testsuite.
Thanks for pointing this out. I'm no expert on DTC, this is the
references to it in tests/run_tests.sh? Is there any more locations I
should check?
>
> Note that this patch does technically cause an incompatible change:
> when I suggested removing this I hadn't realised this was a single
> check, rather than a piece of a larger check. That means that anyone
> configuring this test in their scripts will be broken by removing it.
> This is probably an obscure enough case that I'm prepared to accept
> it, though.
>
> > ---
> > Changes since v2
> > - Rebase after 6.17-rc1 merge window closed.
> > ---
> > checks.c | 27 +--------------------------
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 26 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/checks.c b/checks.c
> > index 7e3fed5005b3..2072e1ea82dc 100644
> > --- a/checks.c
> > +++ b/checks.c
> > @@ -1894,31 +1894,6 @@ static void check_graph_endpoint(struct check *c, struct dt_info *dti,
> > }
> > WARNING(graph_endpoint, check_graph_endpoint, NULL, &graph_nodes);
> >
> > -static void check_graph_child_address(struct check *c, struct dt_info *dti,
> > - struct node *node)
> > -{
> > - int cnt = 0;
> > - struct node *child;
> > -
> > - if (node->bus != &graph_ports_bus && node->bus != &graph_port_bus)
> > - return;
> > -
> > - for_each_child(node, child) {
> > - struct property *prop = get_property(child, "reg");
> > -
> > - /* No error if we have any non-zero unit address */
> > - if (prop && propval_cell(prop) != 0 )
> > - return;
> > -
> > - cnt++;
> > - }
> > -
> > - if (cnt == 1 && node->addr_cells != -1)
> > - FAIL(c, dti, node, "graph node has single child node '%s', #address-cells/#size-cells are not necessary",
> > - node->children->name);
> > -}
> > -WARNING(graph_child_address, check_graph_child_address, NULL, &graph_nodes, &graph_port, &graph_endpoint);
> > -
> > static struct check *check_table[] = {
> > &duplicate_node_names, &duplicate_property_names,
> > &node_name_chars, &node_name_format, &property_name_chars,
> > @@ -2005,7 +1980,7 @@ static struct check *check_table[] = {
> >
> > &alias_paths,
> >
> > - &graph_nodes, &graph_child_address, &graph_port, &graph_endpoint,
> > + &graph_nodes, &graph_port, &graph_endpoint,
> >
> > &always_fail,
> > };
>
> --
> David Gibson (he or they) | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
> david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you, not the other way
> | around.
> http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
--
Kind Regards,
Niklas Söderlund
