diff mbox series

[v4,02/11] dt-bindings: i2c: Discard i2c-slave flag from the DW I2C example

Message ID 20200527120111.5781-3-Sergey.Semin@baikalelectronics.ru (mailing list archive)
State Superseded
Headers show
Series i2c: designeware: Add Baikal-T1 System I2C support | expand

Commit Message

Serge Semin May 27, 2020, 12:01 p.m. UTC
dtc currently doesn't support I2C_OWN_SLAVE_ADDRESS flag set in the
i2c "reg" property. If it is the compiler will print a warning:

Warning (i2c_bus_reg): /example-2/i2c@1120000/eeprom@64: I2C bus unit address format error, expected "40000064"
Warning (i2c_bus_reg): /example-2/i2c@1120000/eeprom@64:reg: I2C address must be less than 10-bits, got "0x40000064"

In order to silence dtc up let's discard the flag from the DW I2C DT
binding example for now. Just revert this commit when dtc is fixed.

Signed-off-by: Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@baikalelectronics.ru>
Cc: Alexey Malahov <Alexey.Malahov@baikalelectronics.ru>
Cc: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-mips@vger.kernel.org

---

Changelog v3:
- This is a new patch created as a result of the Rob request to remove
  the EEPROM-slave bit setting in the DT binndings example until the dtc
  is fixed.
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/snps,designware-i2c.yaml | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

Comments

Rob Herring May 27, 2020, 5:12 p.m. UTC | #1
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 03:01:02PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> dtc currently doesn't support I2C_OWN_SLAVE_ADDRESS flag set in the
> i2c "reg" property. If it is the compiler will print a warning:
> 
> Warning (i2c_bus_reg): /example-2/i2c@1120000/eeprom@64: I2C bus unit address format error, expected "40000064"
> Warning (i2c_bus_reg): /example-2/i2c@1120000/eeprom@64:reg: I2C address must be less than 10-bits, got "0x40000064"
> 
> In order to silence dtc up let's discard the flag from the DW I2C DT
> binding example for now. Just revert this commit when dtc is fixed.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@baikalelectronics.ru>
> Cc: Alexey Malahov <Alexey.Malahov@baikalelectronics.ru>
> Cc: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>
> Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: linux-mips@vger.kernel.org
> 
> ---
> 
> Changelog v3:
> - This is a new patch created as a result of the Rob request to remove
>   the EEPROM-slave bit setting in the DT binndings example until the dtc
>   is fixed.
> ---
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/snps,designware-i2c.yaml | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/snps,designware-i2c.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/snps,designware-i2c.yaml
> index 4bd430b2b41d..101d78e8f19d 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/snps,designware-i2c.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/snps,designware-i2c.yaml
> @@ -137,7 +137,7 @@ examples:
>  
>        eeprom@64 {
>          compatible = "linux,slave-24c02";
> -        reg = <0x40000064>;
> +        reg = <0x64>;

But the compatible is a slave, so you need an example with a different 
device.

>        };
>      };
>    - |
> -- 
> 2.26.2
>
Serge Semin May 27, 2020, 5:18 p.m. UTC | #2
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 11:12:04AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 03:01:02PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> > dtc currently doesn't support I2C_OWN_SLAVE_ADDRESS flag set in the
> > i2c "reg" property. If it is the compiler will print a warning:
> > 
> > Warning (i2c_bus_reg): /example-2/i2c@1120000/eeprom@64: I2C bus unit address format error, expected "40000064"
> > Warning (i2c_bus_reg): /example-2/i2c@1120000/eeprom@64:reg: I2C address must be less than 10-bits, got "0x40000064"
> > 
> > In order to silence dtc up let's discard the flag from the DW I2C DT
> > binding example for now. Just revert this commit when dtc is fixed.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@baikalelectronics.ru>
> > Cc: Alexey Malahov <Alexey.Malahov@baikalelectronics.ru>
> > Cc: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>
> > Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> > Cc: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
> > Cc: linux-mips@vger.kernel.org
> > 
> > ---
> > 
> > Changelog v3:
> > - This is a new patch created as a result of the Rob request to remove
> >   the EEPROM-slave bit setting in the DT binndings example until the dtc
> >   is fixed.
> > ---
> >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/snps,designware-i2c.yaml | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/snps,designware-i2c.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/snps,designware-i2c.yaml
> > index 4bd430b2b41d..101d78e8f19d 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/snps,designware-i2c.yaml
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/snps,designware-i2c.yaml
> > @@ -137,7 +137,7 @@ examples:
> >  
> >        eeprom@64 {
> >          compatible = "linux,slave-24c02";
> > -        reg = <0x40000064>;
> > +        reg = <0x64>;
> 
> But the compatible is a slave, so you need an example with a different 
> device.

Ok. I'll replace the sub-node with just "atmel,24c02" compatible string then.

-Sergey

> 
> >        };
> >      };
> >    - |
> > -- 
> > 2.26.2
> >
Andy Shevchenko May 27, 2020, 5:56 p.m. UTC | #3
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 08:18:41PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 11:12:04AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 03:01:02PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> > > dtc currently doesn't support I2C_OWN_SLAVE_ADDRESS flag set in the
> > > i2c "reg" property. If it is the compiler will print a warning:
> > > 
> > > Warning (i2c_bus_reg): /example-2/i2c@1120000/eeprom@64: I2C bus unit address format error, expected "40000064"
> > > Warning (i2c_bus_reg): /example-2/i2c@1120000/eeprom@64:reg: I2C address must be less than 10-bits, got "0x40000064"
> > > 
> > > In order to silence dtc up let's discard the flag from the DW I2C DT
> > > binding example for now. Just revert this commit when dtc is fixed.

> > >        eeprom@64 {
> > >          compatible = "linux,slave-24c02";
> > > -        reg = <0x40000064>;
> > > +        reg = <0x64>;
> > 
> > But the compatible is a slave, so you need an example with a different 
> > device.
> 

> Ok. I'll replace the sub-node with just "atmel,24c02" compatible string then.

But how it will be different to the another slave connected to the master?

This example is specifically to show that DesingWare I²C controller may be
switched to slave mode.

> > >        };
> > >      };
> > >    - |
Serge Semin May 28, 2020, 8:39 a.m. UTC | #4
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 08:56:24PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 08:18:41PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 11:12:04AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 03:01:02PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> > > > dtc currently doesn't support I2C_OWN_SLAVE_ADDRESS flag set in the
> > > > i2c "reg" property. If it is the compiler will print a warning:
> > > > 
> > > > Warning (i2c_bus_reg): /example-2/i2c@1120000/eeprom@64: I2C bus unit address format error, expected "40000064"
> > > > Warning (i2c_bus_reg): /example-2/i2c@1120000/eeprom@64:reg: I2C address must be less than 10-bits, got "0x40000064"
> > > > 
> > > > In order to silence dtc up let's discard the flag from the DW I2C DT
> > > > binding example for now. Just revert this commit when dtc is fixed.
> 
> > > >        eeprom@64 {
> > > >          compatible = "linux,slave-24c02";
> > > > -        reg = <0x40000064>;
> > > > +        reg = <0x64>;
> > > 
> > > But the compatible is a slave, so you need an example with a different 
> > > device.
> > 
> 
> > Ok. I'll replace the sub-node with just "atmel,24c02" compatible string then.
> 
> But how it will be different to the another slave connected to the master?
> 
> This example is specifically to show that DesingWare I²C controller may be
> switched to slave mode.

Well, dtc doesn't support it and prints warning that the address is invalid.
Though I do understand you concern and is mostly agree with it. Let's do this in
the next way. I'll resend the series with eeprom@64 sub-node replaced with just
a normal eeprom-device. The message log will have an info why this has been
done. In the non-mergeable section of the patch I'll suggest to Rob reconsider
the patch acking, since we can leave the slave-marked sub-node and just live
with the dtc warning until it's fixed in there.

-Sergey

> 
> > > >        };
> > > >      };
> > > >    - |
> 
> -- 
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
> 
>
Andy Shevchenko May 28, 2020, 10 a.m. UTC | #5
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 11:39:23AM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 08:56:24PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 08:18:41PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 11:12:04AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 03:01:02PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> > > > > dtc currently doesn't support I2C_OWN_SLAVE_ADDRESS flag set in the
> > > > > i2c "reg" property. If it is the compiler will print a warning:
> > > > > 
> > > > > Warning (i2c_bus_reg): /example-2/i2c@1120000/eeprom@64: I2C bus unit address format error, expected "40000064"
> > > > > Warning (i2c_bus_reg): /example-2/i2c@1120000/eeprom@64:reg: I2C address must be less than 10-bits, got "0x40000064"
> > > > > 
> > > > > In order to silence dtc up let's discard the flag from the DW I2C DT
> > > > > binding example for now. Just revert this commit when dtc is fixed.
> > 
> > > > >        eeprom@64 {
> > > > >          compatible = "linux,slave-24c02";
> > > > > -        reg = <0x40000064>;
> > > > > +        reg = <0x64>;
> > > > 
> > > > But the compatible is a slave, so you need an example with a different 
> > > > device.
> > > 
> > 
> > > Ok. I'll replace the sub-node with just "atmel,24c02" compatible string then.
> > 
> > But how it will be different to the another slave connected to the master?
> > 
> > This example is specifically to show that DesingWare I²C controller may be
> > switched to slave mode.
> 
> Well, dtc doesn't support it and prints warning that the address is invalid.
> Though I do understand you concern and is mostly agree with it. Let's do this in
> the next way. I'll resend the series with eeprom@64 sub-node replaced with just
> a normal eeprom-device. The message log will have an info why this has been
> done. In the non-mergeable section of the patch I'll suggest to Rob reconsider
> the patch acking, since we can leave the slave-marked sub-node and just live
> with the dtc warning until it's fixed in there.

Thanks!
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/snps,designware-i2c.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/snps,designware-i2c.yaml
index 4bd430b2b41d..101d78e8f19d 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/snps,designware-i2c.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/snps,designware-i2c.yaml
@@ -137,7 +137,7 @@  examples:
 
       eeprom@64 {
         compatible = "linux,slave-24c02";
-        reg = <0x40000064>;
+        reg = <0x64>;
       };
     };
   - |