Re: [PATCH 0/2] fdt: translate address if #size-cells = <0>

[Dario Binacchi]

> Il 07/04/2021 03:16 Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx> ha scritto:
> 
>  
> On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 5:02 PM Dario Binacchi <dariobin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Il 06/04/2021 16:06 Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx> ha scritto:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 2:21 PM Dario Binacchi <dariobin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The series comes from my commit in U-boot
> > > > d64b9cdcd4 ("fdt: translate address if #size-cells = <0>")
> > > > and from the subsequent exchange of emails at the end of which I was
> > > > suggested to send the patch to the linux kernel
> > > > (https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/1614324949-61314-1-git-send-email-bmeng.cn@xxxxxxxxx/).
> > >
> > > It's 'ranges' that determines translatable which is missing from the
> > > DT. This should have not had a 0 size either though maybe we could
> > > support that.
> >
> > I have replied to the email you sent to the u-boot mailing list
> >
> > >
> > > Does the DT have to be updated anyways for your spread spectrum support?
> >
> > The spread spectrum support patch does not need this patch to work. They belong
> > to two different series.
> 
> That's not what I asked. Is the spread spectrum support forcing a DT
> update for users? 

Yes, the deltam and modfreq registers must be added to the DPLL clocks. 

> If the DT has to be changed anyways (not really
> great policy), then you could fix this in the DT at the same time.

I could put the fix to the device tree in that series, although I wouldn't 
create a single patch to fix and add the SSC registers. First the size-cells = <0> 
fix patch and then the SSC patch. 
Do you agree?

Thanks and regards,
Dario

> 
> Rob