[U-Boot] [PATCH] ARM: SPL: FIT: fix DTC warnings on FIT generation

[Lokesh Vutla <lokeshvutla@ti.com>]

On Tuesday 24 October 2017 02:04 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 11:08:57AM +0530, Lokesh Vutla wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday 17 October 2017 02:43 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 02:29:14AM +0530, Jagan Teki wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Andre,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4 October 2017 at 17:24, Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Newer versions of the device tree compiler (rightfully) complain about
>>>>>> mismatches between attributed node names (name@<addr>) and a missing
>>>>>> reg property in that node.
>>>>>> Adjust the FIT build script for 64-bit Allwinner boards to remove the
>>>>>> bogus addresses from the node names and avoid the warnings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>  board/sunxi/mksunxi_fit_atf.sh | 16 ++++++++--------
>>>>>>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> It looks like we have this problem all over the place. The
>>>>> documentation in doc/uImage now seems to have this problem too.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder if instead we should add reg / #address-cells / #size-cells properties?
>>>>
>>>> If the update on dts, might be an another-overhead to maintain u-boot
>>>> dts wrt Linux dts sync.
>>>
>>> Anything that DTC is warning about in a dts that we get from the kernel,
>>> should be fixed in the kernel.  The kernel dtc is what we're using, and
>>> is/will/can also complain about it.
>>
>> Kernel suppress these warning by default[1] and enables these warnings
>> with W= compiler option. May be this should be included in u-boot as well?
>>
>> [1]
>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/scripts/Makefile.lib#n272
> 
> We have slightly different logic for that today in
> scripts/Makefile.extrawarn, perhaps we need to re-sync?
> 

ahh you are right. I do not see these warning with the latest U-Boot.
But I still agree with the $patch as these warnings are meant to be
fixed at some point.

Thanks and regards,
Lokesh