On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 2:43 AM, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 02:29:14AM +0530, Jagan Teki wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: >> > Hi Andre, >> > >> > On 4 October 2017 at 17:24, Andre Przywara <andre.przyw...@arm.com> wrote: >> >> Newer versions of the device tree compiler (rightfully) complain about >> >> mismatches between attributed node names (name@<addr>) and a missing >> >> reg property in that node. >> >> Adjust the FIT build script for 64-bit Allwinner boards to remove the >> >> bogus addresses from the node names and avoid the warnings. >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przyw...@arm.com> >> >> --- >> >> board/sunxi/mksunxi_fit_atf.sh | 16 ++++++++-------- >> >> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >> > >> > It looks like we have this problem all over the place. The >> > documentation in doc/uImage now seems to have this problem too. >> > >> > I wonder if instead we should add reg / #address-cells / #size-cells >> > properties? >> >> If the update on dts, might be an another-overhead to maintain u-boot >> dts wrt Linux dts sync. > > Anything that DTC is warning about in a dts that we get from the kernel, > should be fixed in the kernel. The kernel dtc is what we're using, and > is/will/can also complain about it.
Yes, this can be true if the node changes are more common in between. thanks! -- Jagan Teki Free Software Engineer | www.openedev.com U-Boot, Linux | Upstream Maintainer Hyderabad, India. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
