On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 10:15:10PM -0600, Kumar Gala wrote:
> Treat a node-name and property name at the same level of tree as
> a warning
>
> Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala <kumar.gala@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> checks.c | 19 ++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/checks.c b/checks.c
> index 17cb689..7f9e670 100644
> --- a/checks.c
> +++ b/checks.c
> @@ -330,6 +330,23 @@ static void check_node_name_format(struct check *c, struct dt_info *dti,
> }
> ERROR(node_name_format, check_node_name_format, NULL, &node_name_chars);
>
> +static void check_node_name_vs_property_name(struct check *c,
> + struct dt_info *dti,
> + struct node *node)
> +{
> + struct property *prop;
> +
> + if (!node->parent)
> + return;
> +
> + for_each_property(node->parent, prop) {
> + if (streq(node->name, prop->name))
> + FAIL(c, dti, node, "node name and property name conflict");
> + }
This seems a somewhat roundabout way of detecting this. Instead of
having a check for "sibling" properties of the same name, why not just do:
for_each_subnode(...) {
if (get_property(node, subnode->name))
FAIL(..., "Has both subnode and property named %s", subnode->name);
}
> +}
> +WARNING(node_name_vs_property_name, check_node_name_vs_property_name,
> + NULL, &node_name_chars);
> +
> static void check_unit_address_vs_reg(struct check *c, struct dt_info *dti,
> struct node *node)
> {
> @@ -1796,7 +1813,7 @@ WARNING(graph_endpoint, check_graph_endpoint, NULL, &graph_nodes);
> static struct check *check_table[] = {
> &duplicate_node_names, &duplicate_property_names,
> &node_name_chars, &node_name_format, &property_name_chars,
> - &name_is_string, &name_properties,
> + &name_is_string, &name_properties, &node_name_vs_property_name,
>
> &duplicate_label,
>
--
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
