Message ID | 1529673765-16627-1-git-send-email-eric.auger@redhat.com |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | ARM virt: Silence dtc warnings | expand |
On 22 June 2018 at 14:22, Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com> wrote: > When running dtc on the guest /proc/device-tree, we get the > following warnings: "Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): Node <name> > has a reg or ranges property, but no unit name", with name: > /intc, /intc/its, /intc/v2m, /memory. > > This series removes those warnings by adding the unit address to > the corresponding node names. This didn't apply to my target-arm.next tree. Once I've applied my on-list arm pullreq to master, could you rebase it, please? thanks -- PMM
Hi Peter, On 06/26/2018 07:06 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 22 June 2018 at 14:22, Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com> wrote: >> When running dtc on the guest /proc/device-tree, we get the >> following warnings: "Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): Node <name> >> has a reg or ranges property, but no unit name", with name: >> /intc, /intc/its, /intc/v2m, /memory. >> >> This series removes those warnings by adding the unit address to >> the corresponding node names. > > This didn't apply to my target-arm.next tree. Once I've > applied my on-list arm pullreq to master, could you > rebase it, please? Sure Thanks Eric > > thanks > -- PMM >
On 26 June 2018 at 18:15, Auger Eric <eric.auger@redhat.com> wrote: > Hi Peter, > > On 06/26/2018 07:06 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: >> On 22 June 2018 at 14:22, Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com> wrote: >>> When running dtc on the guest /proc/device-tree, we get the >>> following warnings: "Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): Node <name> >>> has a reg or ranges property, but no unit name", with name: >>> /intc, /intc/its, /intc/v2m, /memory. >>> >>> This series removes those warnings by adding the unit address to >>> the corresponding node names. >> >> This didn't apply to my target-arm.next tree. Once I've >> applied my on-list arm pullreq to master, could you >> rebase it, please? > > Sure Thanks. I'm being a bit lazy because the fixup probably isn't very complicated. The pullreq is now in master, so you can just rebase on that. thanks -- PMM