Re: dtc warnings

[Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>]

On 04/01/2016 02:53 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 4:49 PM, Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Rob,
>>
>> On 01/04/16 04:40, Rob Herring wrote:
>>> You may have noticed that linux-next had gotten noisy with dtc
>>> warnings lately. I dropped the change for a bit, but added it back
>>> today except now it is disabled unless building with "W=1".
>>>
>>> There's ~25K (2500 unique) warnings generated from the ARM dts files.
>>> Here's the ranking of warnings by dtb. OMAP is the clear winner (based
>>> on the similar counts, probably lots of duplicates). Please help
>>> remind contributors to test with W=1 and start to fix these.
>>>
>>> At least for memory nodes, I plan to whitelist allowing no
>>> unit-address. There could be others, but none that I've seen so far.
>>
>> What's the correct way to fix nodes for display platform devices? For
>> example, omap4-panda-common.dtsi has two connector nodes:
>>
>> dvi0: connector@0 {
>>         compatible = "dvi-connector";
>>         label = "dvi";
>>         ...
>> };
>>
>>
>> hdmi0: connector@1 {
>>         compatible = "hdmi-connector";
>>         label = "hdmi";
>>         ...
>> };
> 
> I have the same doubts. The ePAPR says in that case "the node-name
> alone differentiates the node from other nodes at the same level in
> the tree.". But which is preferred? Differentiating by number or by
> type?
> 
> Similarly, what to do with the opp modes (a lot of warnings) in
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/opp/opp.txt?
> 
+ linux-pm and Viresh for opp.txt


-- 
Regards,
Nishanth Menon