Re: [dtc RFC PATCH] Enforce node name unit-address presence/absence

[Stephen Warren <swarren-3lzwWm7+Weoh9ZMKESR00Q@public.gmane.org>]

On 09/18/2013 02:41 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren-3lzwWm7+Weoh9ZMKESR00Q@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> From: Stephen Warren <swarren-DDmLM1+adcrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
>>
>> ePAPR 1.1 section 2.2.1.1 "Node Name Requirements" specifies that any
>> node that has a reg property must include a unit address in its name
>> with value matching the first entry in its reg property. Conversely, if
>> a node does not have a reg property, the node name must not include a
>> unit address.
>>
>> Implement a check for this. The code doesn't validate the format of the
>> unit address; ePAPR implies this may vary from binding to binding, so
>> I'm not sure that it's possible to validate the value itself.
...
> Anyway, I think it'd be better to produce warnings than errors for
> this. That way we could also merge it now while the trees are fixed
> up.

Yes, that makes sense.

> Also, maybe warn for @0x<foo>, which is another unpreferred syntax, it
> should just be @<foo> (with foo being in hex).

ePAPR doesn't seem to disallow that; it explicitly says that the
unit-address consists of the characters from table 2-1, which is the
same table of characters used for the node name itself. However, it does
state that the binding for a particular bus may impose additional
restrictions; should I implement such a check but limit it to the root
node or specific known bus types? That would require explicitly
whitelisting the check for a lot of bus types, given that each I2C/...
controller binding is a bus type...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html