On Sat, Jul 06, 2019 at 11:16:42AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > 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?
Having more than one device at the same address is a warning about duplicated addresses, I should have been clearer about that. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
