On 30/06/2022 17:49, Niklas Cassel wrote:
On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 07:43:42PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
From: Conor Dooley conor.dooley@microchip.com
The k210 devicetrees warn about missing/empty reg and/or ranges properties: arch/riscv/boot/dts/canaan/k210.dtsi:408.22-460.5: Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): /soc/bus@52000000: node has a unit name, but no reg or ranges property arch/riscv/boot/dts/canaan/k210.dtsi:352.22-406.5: Warning (simple_bus_reg): /soc/bus@50400000: missing or empty reg/ranges property
Add reg and ranges properties that naively cap the buses after the allocation of their last devices.
Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley conor.dooley@microchip.com
arch/riscv/boot/dts/canaan/k210.dtsi | 9 ++++++--- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/riscv/boot/dts/canaan/k210.dtsi b/arch/riscv/boot/dts/canaan/k210.dtsi index 948dc235e39d..6a34dc4f3e51 100644 --- a/arch/riscv/boot/dts/canaan/k210.dtsi +++ b/arch/riscv/boot/dts/canaan/k210.dtsi @@ -163,7 +163,8 @@ apb0: bus@50200000 { #address-cells = <1>; #size-cells = <1>; compatible = "simple-pm-bus";
ranges;
regs = <0x50200000 0x200000>;ranges = <0x50200000 0x50200000 0x200000>;This looks wrong.
The property is called "reg" not "regs".
Yeah...
And I don't think that you should provide "reg" at all, simply supplying "ranges" should be sufficient, no?
I don't recall why I put the regs in, I'll drop it if possible & respond if I can't. IIRC, it did actually complain.
Kind regards, Niklas
clocks = <&sysclk K210_CLK_APB0>; gpio1: gpio@50200000 {@@ -382,7 +383,8 @@ apb1: bus@50400000 { #address-cells = <1>; #size-cells = <1>; compatible = "simple-pm-bus";
ranges;
regs = <0x50400000 0x40100>;ranges = <0x50400000 0x50400000 0x40100>; clocks = <&sysclk K210_CLK_APB1>; wdt0: watchdog@50400000 {@@ -437,7 +439,8 @@ apb2: bus@52000000 { #address-cells = <1>; #size-cells = <1>; compatible = "simple-pm-bus";
ranges;
regs = <0x52000000 0x2000200>;ranges = <0x52000000 0x52000000 0x2000200>; clocks = <&sysclk K210_CLK_APB2>; spi0: spi@52000000 {-- 2.36.1