Lots of "Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): Node /blah/blah/blah has a unit name, but no reg property"

Lots of "Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): Node /blah/blah/blah has a unit name, but no reg property"

[Ian Campbell]

I recently updated the device-tree-compiler package on the system which
builds the split device tree repo[0] from 1.4.0+dfsg-2 to 1.4.2-1
(debian package versions) and now during the test build I see many
(over 1,000) of these:

    Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): Node /soc@ff700000/ethernet@b0000 has a unit name, but no reg property

Is this something which is known? Maybe Linux hasn't pulled in the
newer dtc yet so you aren't hitting it yet, or maybe you've done what I
did as a quick fix and added:
    DTC_FLAGS="-W no-unit_address_vs_reg"
?

(a second issue is the lack of the offending filename in the
warning message, I'll figure out the right venue for that next)

Ian.

[0] https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/devicetree/devicetree-rebasing.git/
--
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

Re: Lots of "Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): Node /blah/blah/blah has a unit name, but no reg property"

[Rob Herring]

+dtc list

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 3:55 AM, Ian Campbell <ijc-KcIKpvwj1kUDXYZnReoRVg@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> I recently updated the device-tree-compiler package on the system which
> builds the split device tree repo[0] from 1.4.0+dfsg-2 to 1.4.2-1
> (debian package versions) and now during the test build I see many
> (over 1,000) of these:
>
>     Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): Node /soc@ff700000/ethernet@b0000 has a unit name, but no reg property
>
> Is this something which is known? Maybe Linux hasn't pulled in the
> newer dtc yet so you aren't hitting it yet, or maybe you've done what I
> did as a quick fix and added:
>     DTC_FLAGS="-W no-unit_address_vs_reg"
> ?

Linux has this, but the warnings are only enabled with "W=1" builds.
I'm trying to not have to review the trivial crap.

It's going to spew even more soon. I've posted some more dtc checks last week.

> (a second issue is the lack of the offending filename in the
> warning message, I'll figure out the right venue for that next)

Yeah, I don't think the dtc checks infrastructure has the information
as they run on the live tree after all the parsing is done.

Rob

>
> Ian.
>
> [0] https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/devicetree/devicetree-rebasing.git/
--
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

Re: Lots of "Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): Node /blah/blah/blah has a unit name, but no reg property"

[Ian Campbell]

On Mon, 2017-01-30 at 10:46 -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> +dtc list
> 
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 3:55 AM, Ian Campbell <ijc-KcIKpvwj1kUDXYZnReoRVg@public.gmane.org>
> wrote:
> > I recently updated the device-tree-compiler package on the system
> which
> > builds the split device tree repo[0] from 1.4.0+dfsg-2 to 1.4.2-1
> > (debian package versions) and now during the test build I see many
> > (over 1,000) of these:
> >
> >     Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): Node /soc@ff700000/ethernet@b000
> 0 has a unit name, but no reg property
> >
> > Is this something which is known? Maybe Linux hasn't pulled in the
> > newer dtc yet so you aren't hitting it yet, or maybe you've done
> what I
> > did as a quick fix and added:
> >     DTC_FLAGS="-W no-unit_address_vs_reg"
> > ?
> 
> Linux has this, but the warnings are only enabled with "W=1" builds.
> I'm trying to not have to review the trivial crap.

Specifically Linux adds the DTC_FLAGS="-W no-unit_address_vs_reg" only
if W=0 (rather than enabling it if W=1).

I'll disable that one in the split tree too then.

> It's going to spew even more soon. I've posted some more dtc checks
> last week.

Fun!

> > (a second issue is the lack of the offending filename in the
> > warning message, I'll figure out the right venue for that next)
> 
> Yeah, I don't think the dtc checks infrastructure has the information
> as they run on the live tree after all the parsing is done.

I also started a thread on -compiler. I've replied there already (to
whit: printing the output filename in the warning would be a useful
improvement).

Ian.