On Sun, Aug 17, 2025 at 03:37:33PM +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>
> Reviewed-by: Rob Herring (Arm) <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>
Applied, thanks.
--
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
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
