Hi Geert, Rob, Mark > > [SoC file]: Warning (spi_bus_bridge): /soc/spi@xxxx: incorrect #address-cells for SPI bus > > also defined at [Board file] > > [SoC file]: Warning (spi_bus_bridge): /soc/spi@xxxx: incorrect #size-cells for SPI bus > > also defined at [Board file] > > > > MSIOF dt-bindings doesn't load spi-controller.yaml, but why I got "spi_bus_bridge" > > warning ?? I wonder dt compiler (?) automatically check "spi" node ? > > I have tryed some code, my expectation seems correct (In case of node name was "spi@xxx", > > I got many SPI related warnings even though I didn't load spi-controller). > > These come from dtc, which makes its own assumptions: > > $ git grep spi_bus_bridge > scripts/dtc/checks.c:static void check_spi_bus_bridge(struct check > *c, struct dt_info *dti, struct node *node) > scripts/dtc/checks.c:WARNING(spi_bus_bridge, check_spi_bus_bridge, > NULL, &addr_size_cells); > scripts/dtc/checks.c:WARNING(spi_bus_reg, check_spi_bus_reg, NULL, > ®_format, &spi_bus_bridge); > scripts/dtc/checks.c: &spi_bus_bridge, > > Perhaps we do need to extend the use of role-specifying properties > like "interrupt-controller" (in Device Tree Specification v0.4 and in > dt-schema) and the few others in Documentation/devicetree/bindings: > > gpio-controller > mctp-controller > msi-controller > system-power-controller Hmm... but I'm not familiar with DT. Should I do it ?? Except from SPI warning, and focus to MSIOF-I2S, my patch itself is not so bad, right ? I will post v4 patch-set, with comment above. Thank you for your help !! Best regards --- Kuninori Morimoto
