On Thu, 2020-01-09 at 15:57 +0100, Matthias Brugger wrote:
[...]
> The property expects size-cells to be two, but U-Boot will use one
> cell if no
> size-cells are defined in the device node (which is not the case) and
> therefor
> will see
>
> Bank1: Flashbase 0x0 0x0 Flashsize 0x4000000
> Bank2: Flashbase 0x4000000 0x0 Flashsize 0x4000000
My knowledge of DT is superficial. However, looking at the following
lines from the spec:
- A |spec|-compliant boot program shall supply #address-cells and
#size-cells on all nodes that have children.
- If missing, a client program should assume a default value of 2 for
#address-cells, and a value of 1 for #size-cells.
.. and contrasting with the root node and device node in question from
the DTS for this platform:
/ {
interrupt-parent = <0x8001>;
#size-cells = <0x2>;
#address-cells = <0x2>;
compatible = "linux,dummy-virt";
.
.
flash@0 {
bank-width = <0x4>;
reg = <0x0 0x0 0x0 0x4000000 0x0 0x4000000 0x0 0x4000000>;
compatible = "cfi-flash";
};
.. it seems to me that while the flash node is missing #size-cells,
given that #size-cells _is_ defined in the parent node ("the node that
has children") then that value (0x2) is the one u-boot should have used
but didn't.
Maybe the u-boot DT interpreting logic needs to check if the parent
node also does not specify #size-cells before making the assumption
that the value 1 is to be used ?
Thanks,
Robin
