On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 07:34:06AM +0000, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Wed, 2017-02-01 at 12:00 +1100, David Gibson wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 11:16:54AM +1100, David Gibson wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 08:24:48AM +0000, Ian Campbell wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2017-01-31 at 10:49 +1100, David Gibson wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 09:13:05AM +0000, Ian Campbell wrote: > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > > > I wasn't sure how/where to make a wishlist bug report, so I hope this > > > > > > will suffice, am happy to be pointed in a different direction though. > > > > > > > > > > > > I recently[0] stumbled over around 1,000 of these: > > > > > > Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): Node /soc has a reg or ranges property, but no unit name > > > > > > Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): Node /soc/main-oscillator has a reg or ranges property, but no unit name > > > > > > Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): Node /soc has a reg or ranges property, but no unit name > > > > > > Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): Node /soc has a reg or ranges property, but no unit name > > > > > > Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): Node /soc/main-oscillator has a reg or ranges property, but no unit name > > > > > > Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): Node /soc has a reg or ranges property, but no unit name > > > > > > Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): Node /soc/main-oscillator has a reg or ranges property, but no unit name > > > > > > > > > > > > When building the split device tree repo[1] from the Linux source > > > > > > (essential it's a build of every single dts in the kernel source). > > > > > > > > > > > > The cause of the warning is an issue which needs to be fixed but I > > > > > > thought I would mention that it would be very useful (I expect) if dtc > > > > > > would include the offending file in warnings (like e.g. gcc would), not > > > > > > just because of the number of *.dtb being built here but also due to > > > > > > #include and /include/ of .dtsi files. > > > > > > > > > > Right, having the filenames - and line numbers - there would certainly > > > > > be helpful. Unfortunately, it's not at all trivial to implement. As > > > > > someone said in a different thread, these checks take place (and have > > > > > to) after the tree is completely parsed and we no longer have source > > > > > locations readily to hand. > > > > > > > > Would it be easier (or possible) to print the name of the eventually- > > > > to-be-output binary? At the moment the user is left guessing which one > > > > of 1,200 *.dtb files they just built produced each of the similar > > > > number of warnings. If the message was instead: > > > > > > > > Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): arch/arm/boot/dts/foo.dtb: Node /soc has a ... > > > > > > > > Then that would at least be something to go on. > > > > > > > > In fact, given the checks are on the final tree, naming the output file > > > > in the messages seems fairly logical (you could even imagine doing > > > > these checks in a separate linter tool after the fact, given the *.dtb > > > > as input, I suppose) > > > > > > Hm, possible, though a bit messy to do within dtc. The output file is > > > > s/is/isn't/ duh. > > > > > currently passed into that section of the code, but I guess we could > > > add it. > > > > > > However, it seems this would more easily be fixed from the Makefile > > > side: if you echo a (suitably abbreviated) dtc command line, then it > > > should become obvious which dtb the errors are associated with. > > Not with "make -j12" sadly. I suppose people could rerun make without > the -j to figure out where the warning came from, but it seems rather > suboptimal to me. Yeah, I guess. Given it's possible though I'm disinclined to make a change to dtc myself. Feel free to send a patch and I'll think about it. -- 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
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
