On 30/05/2023 15:38, Raphael Gallais-Pou wrote:
>
> On 5/30/23 15:30, Alexandre TORGUE wrote:
>> On 5/30/23 14:27, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On Mon, 29 May 2023 11:13:57 +0200, Raphael Gallais-Pou wrote:
"#address-cells" and "#size-cells" are two properties that are not
mandatory.
On 5/30/23 15:30, Alexandre TORGUE wrote:
> On 5/30/23 14:27, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 May 2023 11:13:57 +0200, Raphael Gallais-Pou wrote:
>>> "#address-cells" and "#size-cells" are two properties that are not
>>> mandatory. For instance, the DSI could refer to a bridge outside
On 5/30/23 14:27, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On Mon, 29 May 2023 11:13:57 +0200, Raphael Gallais-Pou wrote:
"#address-cells" and "#size-cells" are two properties that are not
mandatory. For instance, the DSI could refer to a bridge outside the scope
of the node rather than include a 'panel@0'
On Mon, 29 May 2023 11:13:57 +0200, Raphael Gallais-Pou wrote:
> "#address-cells" and "#size-cells" are two properties that are not
> mandatory. For instance, the DSI could refer to a bridge outside the scope
> of the node rather than include a 'panel@0' subnode. By doing so, address
> and size
"#address-cells" and "#size-cells" are two properties that are not
mandatory. For instance, the DSI could refer to a bridge outside the scope
of the node rather than include a 'panel@0' subnode. By doing so, address
and size fields become then unnecessary, creating a warning at build time.
