From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rob Herring Subject: Re: DT dtc warnings Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 15:02:19 -0600 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Krzysztof Kozlowski Cc: Barry Song , Kukjin Kim , Maxime Ripard , Chen-Yu Tsai , Nicolas Ferre , Alexandre Belloni , Patrice Chotard , Peter Rosin , Santosh Shilimkar , "arm-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org" , "linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org" , "devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , Mathieu Malaterre List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 7:21 PM, Rob Herring wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Below is a current list of ARM boards with more than 40 dtc warnings >> when building with W=1. There's a treewide patch in flight to fix some >> unit-address warnings[1], so those aren't included here. The list is >> grouped by maintainer. AT91, Exynos, and Allwinner continue to be at >> the top of the list and have been for some time (though having >> multiple boards for an SoC can cause lots of duplicated warnings). >> >> 50 - arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250-arndale.dts >> 50 - arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250-smdk5250.dts >> 50 - arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250-snow.dts >> 50 - arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250-snow-rev5.dts >> 50 - arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250-spring.dts >> 71 - arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5420-arndale-octa.dts >> 71 - arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5420-peach-pit.dts >> 71 - arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5420-smdk5420.dts >> 71 - arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5422-odroidhc1.dts >> 71 - arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5422-odroidxu3.dts >> 71 - arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5422-odroidxu3-lite.dts >> 71 - arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5422-odroidxu4.dts >> 71 - arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5800-peach-pi.dts >> > > Sure, I can take care of this but in such case it would be better if > Mathieu's (+Cc) patch would be split per-subarch maintainer. I can > base my patch on top of his... but there might be conflicts when > applying to my tree. > > Different topic - why not enabling these warnings by default? Because the warning police don't like lots of warnings. Neither did Linus, but he only sees the unittest ones[1]. The ones that are actual binding errors rather than best practice are on by default. The plan is to enable once the warnings are all gone. Rob [1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree/msg202057.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html