Re: [PATCH 0/2] schemas: add "cpus" schema

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]



On Wed, 26 Jun 2019, Rob Herring wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 9:16 AM Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 25 Jun 2019, Rob Herring wrote:
> >
> > > Minimally, for anyone submitting and applying schema patches,
> > > 'dt_binding_check' should pass and not have warnings. Just like
> > > compiling C code. I'd like to make it part of the default target, but
> > > things are a bit immature still and once we have all 3500 bindings
> > > converted, it will be too slow.
> >
> > Maybe it would be better if dt_binding_check respected the ARCH
> > environment variable in the kernel tree?  That would speed things up, and
> > most kernel developers are probably only concerned with DT files in their
> > particular architecture.  Then the existing 'dt_binding_check'
> > functionality that ignores ARCH could be renamed to something like
> > 'dt_binding_check_all'.
> 
> The vast majority of bindings have nothing to do with the $ARCH. You
> could do things like artificially associate the SiFive UART with
> RiscV, but then when things happen like Freescale PPC networking chips
> moving to Arm or just the mixture between arm and arm64 that all
> breaks.

You're right.  Cleanly implementing something like this looks like it 
would be more painful than it would be worth.

> > > BTW, much of this applies to just building dtbs with W=1 or W=12 which
> > > turns on a bunch of dtc checks. Hopefully, riscv can be warning free
> > > from the start (before you have a 1000 boards).
> >
> > The upstream RISC-V DTBs don't generate any warnings for "make dtbs W=2",
> > so I think we're in pretty good shape there.
> 
> Note that 'W=2' doesn't include what 'W=1' turns on. You have to do
> 'W=12' for everything and the more important things are in 'W=1'. Not
> the most obvious interface IMO.

OK, I didn't know that either.  In any case, we're also clean with W=12.

> > > For this case specifically, I'll look at how to restructure the cpu
> > > schemas. You need to fix the dtc warnings.
> >
> > I wasn't aware of 'dt_binding_check' and 'dtbs_check'.  Thanks for the
> > pointer.  I'll look at the YAML-derived dtc warnings.

For the sake of the archives, that patch was written and sent and is 
available here:

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/alpine.DEB.2.21.9999.1906260829030.21507@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#u

> > Sounds like 'make dt_binding_check' and 'make dtbs_check' need to be added
> > to Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst, if the expectation is
> > that everyone should run them.
> 
> See Documentation/devicetree/writing-schema.md
> 
> The DT specifics for submitting patches are in:
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.txt

OK, good to know.

> Still, we probably need to add something about schema there. Then
> there's only 1 entry point for people to not read.

Yep, seems like a good idea.


- Paul



[Index of Archives]     [Device Tree]     [Linux Driver Backports]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Photos]     [Yosemite Photos]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Yosemite Backpacking]

  Powered by Linux