From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Gibson Subject: Re: RFC: option to toggle dtc checks on and off Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 23:19:41 +1100 Message-ID: <20120111121941.GI4935@truffala.fritz.box> References: <20111028051525.GA7215@truffala.fritz.box> <20120109024129.GH5628@truffala.fritz.box> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org Sender: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org To: Jon Loeliger Cc: devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 08:07:30AM -0600, Jon Loeliger wrote: > > Jon, I was hoping I'd get some comment on this patch eventually. > > Sorry/ . > > > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 04:15:25PM +1100, David Gibson wrote: > > > Here is a draft patch which adds a -C option to dtc, allowing > > > individual semantic checks to be turned on and off. It also allows > > > indivudual checks to be set as triggering either warnings or errors. > > Turning checks on and off: good. > > > > I have a couple of concerns about it in its present form. First, the > > > current syntax is that "-C -checkname" disables a check, "-C > > > checkname" turns a check on as a warning and "-C +checkname" turns it > > > on as an error. I'm not convinced this is a great syntax. > > Yeah, that's sub-obtimal. > What about using something like "-E checkname" and "-W checkname"? Yeah, I though of that too. Can't remeber why I didn't go that way. Gets a bit weird if you specify both -E foo and -W foo, but "last one wins" is probably still a reasonable way of deciding that. Any thoughts for an option to turn a check off completely? > > > Second, turning on a check will force on all prerequisite checks for > > > it. Turning a check off will disable all checks for which it is a > > > prerequisite. This seems necessary, since a check can't safely be > > > executed without having first checked its prereqs, but this could have > > > some very non-obvious effects from the command line. > > Hmm... That seems like maybe a small matter of documentation...? I guess. Might be worth printing a message for each check implicitly enabled or disabled, too. > And in which order do you apply the cmd line options for their implications? > Last one takes precedence? That was what I had in mind. -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson