From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 71A58353A99; Tue, 1 Sep 2026 01:18:31 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1788225518; cv=none; b=rigBf7nJgF6FZrB8+e4dGsSaHjwn0YJ9xL/nPShvcU6aqOqkes1xrZRwZ+GpwCYTfpTL8wClTWhxwFylq+rVpXhKLaEKZQbz86xb3yjE/wK4ltKWkLKEK2/05l+1gfvrererdpExoFxoJmerOQw41xHUU9sNUacMu2Rn9gylVCQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1788225518; c=relaxed/simple; bh=idIHRkof8sbeVcjiaCH8kNeaLFfAjiPoLmWRaE51QNA=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=AaTHNFzq6F247bPT1XRfJbmmAA5m7tBVmQwPjr9NWBO1VKNDbu23Z5To72rzQb6xsEgReIPfoh6SaC2bJL1p5AHROk8lzeyZmQ35vonxKGRsJei9/lMbLfRkJlI2zcBm8aycNjHT2FKsH/M92oquWDzsFgmKcAqhLDE9+9FHiLk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=UKyMFy3s; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="UKyMFy3s" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 730521F000E9; Tue, 1 Sep 2026 01:18:27 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1788225507; bh=zJFEinLEVg2Xx5rSQCnDDXDnX23VEz8h7PfP63s3Vxs=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=UKyMFy3skW9UJXL1IN9drPxuuURVyimgadX2iCnT+2z4apMYJTdvO2Dt1qSE0upRy IrK1vdqvVUbKK8l9+RHk7NsI5csbdEkxFSIQ40xtUZHVP48bv/A4dSGaRYF9jmjyxQ hiy95J0463CoqKbBcKWzTgFJvgjitG3ffyD8mckra2wH1sOE6faDFIEJDF3w8gYaoP 9sTwctGYXU62k6S9V1+1jrb4SxDufkO/ZqH2gFm6m2vR2/BHw47iXCT+3Tsn7diyAZ +DY0Rfa6erEg+Ak9LP+LxlMZphDTOWKKJcsQDohJndo9ijqYxcd+5zDfmLKQMgXCVi WHt2szrFGYx+g== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] of: address: kill of_node_is_pcie() Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Alex Elder" Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org, robh@kernel.org, conor+dt@kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20260901011338.1323243-5-elder@riscstar.com> References: <20260901011338.1323243-1-elder@riscstar.com> <20260901011338.1323243-5-elder@riscstar.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2026 01:18:26 +0000 Message-Id: <20260901011827.730521F000E9@smtp.kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(= s) to consider: - [Low] Outdated comment in `of_bus_pci_match()` incorrectly claims a warni= ng is issued. -- commit 0ffaade5a7eebd20cc4d79d7c8ed0d49f6da1857 Author: Alex Elder of: address: kill of_node_is_pcie() The of_bus->match function for the "PCI" bus type is fairly liberal in what it accepts as a PCI bus devicetree node. If a node has no device_type property, it even allows a node named "pcie@" to be accepted as represnting a devicetree bus, though it issues a warning in that case. > diff --git a/drivers/of/address.c b/drivers/of/address.c > index 499d37ceae210..ee2eb44884d85 100644 > --- a/drivers/of/address.c > +++ b/drivers/of/address.c [ ... ] > @@ -156,7 +146,7 @@ static int of_bus_pci_match(struct device_node *np) > * "ht" is hypertransport > * > * If none of the device_type match, and that the node name is > * "pcie", accept the device as PCI (with a warning). > */ > return of_node_is_type(np, "pci") || of_node_is_type(np, "pciex") || > of_node_is_type(np, "vci") || of_node_is_type(np, "ht") || > - of_node_is_pcie(np); > + of_node_name_eq(np, "pcie"); > } [Severity: Low] Does the comment block above this return statement need to be updated? Since the patch replaces the call to of_node_is_pcie() with a direct check of the node name to avoid duplicate warnings, the comment in of_bus_pci_mat= ch() claiming that it accepts the device "(with a warning)" seems to be a minor documentation regression. Could we update the comment to reflect the new behavior? --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260901011338.1323= 243-1-elder@riscstar.com?part=3D4