> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Herring <[email protected]>
> Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 10:55 AM
> To: Leo Li <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]; Oleksij Rempel <linux@rempel-
> privat.de>; Rob Herring <[email protected]>; Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <[email protected]>; [email protected]; linux-
> [email protected]; Shawn Guo <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/15] dt-bindings: memory: fsl: convert ifc binding to
> yaml schema
>
> On Fri, 05 Feb 2021 17:47:22 -0600, Li Yang wrote:
> > Convert the txt binding to yaml format and add description. Also
> > updated the recommended node name to ifc-bus to align with the
> > simple-bus node name requirements.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Li Yang <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > .../bindings/memory-controllers/fsl/ifc.txt | 82 ----------
> > .../bindings/memory-controllers/fsl/ifc.yaml | 140
> > ++++++++++++++++++
> > 2 files changed, 140 insertions(+), 82 deletions(-) delete mode
> > 100644
> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/fsl/ifc.txt
> > create mode 100644
> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/fsl/ifc.yaml
> >
>
> My bot found errors running 'make dt_binding_check' on your patch:
>
> yamllint warnings/errors:
>
> dtschema/dtc warnings/errors:
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-
> controllers/fsl/ifc.example.dts:36.27-49.19: Warning (simple_bus_reg):
> /example-0/soc/ifc-bus@ffe1e000/flash@0,0: simple-bus unit address
> format error, expected "0"
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-
> controllers/fsl/ifc.example.dts:51.27-64.19: Warning (simple_bus_reg):
> /example-0/soc/ifc-bus@ffe1e000/flash@1,0: simple-bus unit address
> format error, expected "100000000"
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-
> controllers/fsl/ifc.example.dts:66.26-71.19: Warning (simple_bus_reg):
> /example-0/soc/ifc-bus@ffe1e000/cpld@3,0: simple-bus unit address format
> error, expected "300000000"
Hi Rob,
I saw these warnings, but cannot find a good solution to it. The first cell in
the address is the Chip select, while the second cell in the address is the
address offset within the chip select. It would confusing to combine the two
cells of different purposes into a single address as suggested by the warning.
Can we allow the multi-cell address in the node name?
Regards,
Leo
