dtc warnings

[viresh.kumar@linaro.org (Viresh Kumar)]

On 01-04-16, 08:57, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> 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 at 0 {
> >>         compatible = "dvi-connector";
> >>         label = "dvi";
> >>         ...
> >> };
> >>
> >>
> >> hdmi0: connector at 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?

What warnings are you talking about ?

-- 
viresh