[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAL_JsqJhRG7XsvMVNptRXrVREh3Vew+bZ4v+EgBUn4qKeRMWuw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2021 19:40:56 -0500
From: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc: Rajesh Patil <rajpat@...eaurora.org>,
linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>, msavaliy@....qualcomm.com,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS"
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan@...eaurora.org>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
satya priya <skakit@...eaurora.org>,
Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V10 1/8] dt-bindings: spi: Add sc7280 support
On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 5:45 PM Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 3:37 PM Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 23 Sep 2021 17:46:11 +0530, Rajesh Patil wrote:
> > > Add compatible for sc7280 SoC.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Rajesh Patil <rajpat@...eaurora.org>
> > > Reviewed-by: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
> > > Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
> > > ---
> > > Change in V10:
> > > - As per Stephen's comments,
> > > sorted compatible names in alphabet order
> > >
> > > Changes in V9:
> > > - No changes
> > >
> > > Changes in V8:
> > > - As per Doug's comments, added "qcom,sc7280-qspi" compatible
> > >
> > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/qcom,spi-qcom-qspi.yaml | 5 ++++-
> > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> >
> > Running 'make dtbs_check' with the schema in this patch gives the
> > following warnings. Consider if they are expected or the schema is
> > incorrect. These may not be new warnings.
> >
> > Note that it is not yet a requirement to have 0 warnings for dtbs_check.
> > This will change in the future.
> >
> > Full log is available here: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1531702
> >
> >
> > spi@...c000: compatible:0: 'qcom,qspi-v1' is not one of ['qcom,sc7280-qspi', 'qcom,sdm845-qspi']
> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-idp.dt.yaml
> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-coachz-r1.dt.yaml
> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-coachz-r1-lte.dt.yaml
> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-coachz-r3.dt.yaml
> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-coachz-r3-lte.dt.yaml
> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-lazor-limozeen.dt.yaml
> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-lazor-limozeen-nots.dt.yaml
> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-lazor-limozeen-nots-r4.dt.yaml
> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-lazor-r0.dt.yaml
> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-lazor-r1.dt.yaml
> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-lazor-r1-kb.dt.yaml
> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-lazor-r1-lte.dt.yaml
> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-lazor-r3.dt.yaml
> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-lazor-r3-kb.dt.yaml
> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-lazor-r3-lte.dt.yaml
> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-pompom-r1.dt.yaml
> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-pompom-r1-lte.dt.yaml
> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-pompom-r2.dt.yaml
> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-pompom-r2-lte.dt.yaml
> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-pompom-r3.dt.yaml
> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-pompom-r3-lte.dt.yaml
> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-r1.dt.yaml
> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-r1-lte.dt.yaml
> >
> > spi@...c000: compatible: ['qcom,qspi-v1'] is too short
> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-idp.dt.yaml
> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-coachz-r1.dt.yaml
> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-coachz-r1-lte.dt.yaml
>
> Right. I mentioned this in earlier review feedback and Rajesh said
> he'd do a follow-up patch to add sc7180 to the list here and also add
> the proper compatible in the sc7180.dtsi file. That's not a new error
> and (IMO) shouldn't block this patch from moving forward, though it
> should be nearly trivial to do.
To repeat:
> > Note that it is not yet a requirement to have 0 warnings for dtbs_check.
> > This will change in the future.
But I think it is useful information to make an informed decision
whether the schema is missing something or not, so I'm adding these to
my semi-automated emails.
Rob
Powered by blists - more mailing lists