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.

Best Regards

Eric

History:
v2 -> v3:
- only nop root /memory and /memory@unit-address nodes
- remove a deprecated comment

v1 -> v2:
- nop existing node-name and node-name@unit-address nodes and
  add our owns.
- added 1st patch device_tree: Add qemu_fdt_node_unit_path

Eric Auger (3):
  device_tree: Add qemu_fdt_node_unit_path
  hw/arm/virt: Silence dtc /intc warnings
  hw/arm/virt: Silence dtc /memory warning

 device_tree.c                | 55 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 hw/arm/boot.c                | 41 +++++++++++++++------------
 hw/arm/virt.c                | 66 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
 include/sysemu/device_tree.h | 16 +++++++++++
 4 files changed, 132 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-)

-- 
2.5.5

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