Hi Tom, On Wed, 26 Jun 2019 at 15:33, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > With a more modern dtc we now get lots of warnings about problems with > the sandbox dts files and then in turn the DM tests. Start addressing > these warnings by using, or not using in some cases, addresses on nodes > and update tests to match. > > Cc: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> > Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> > --- > Please note that this is not enough. A few tests are still failing for > the main test.dtb run and I don't see the obvious correction. I also > largely left sandbox64 untouched but it too needs changes. > --- > arch/sandbox/dts/sandbox.dts | 22 ++++++++++---------- > arch/sandbox/dts/sandbox64.dts | 2 +- > arch/sandbox/dts/test.dts | 46 > +++++++++++++++++++++--------------------- > include/sandbox-adc.h | 2 +- > test/dm/pmic.c | 2 +- > test/dm/spmi.c | 2 +- > 6 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)
Thanks for looking at this. Note that dm/next has some updates so you should base on that (e.g. a common sandbox.dtsi). I wonder what warnings you get with the simple 0/1/2 addresses? Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot