On 09/18/2013 02:41 PM, Olof Johansson wrote: > On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> From: Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> ePAPR 1.1 section 2.2.1.1 "Node Name Requirements" specifies that any >> node that has a reg property must include a unit address in its name >> with value matching the first entry in its reg property. Conversely, if >> a node does not have a reg property, the node name must not include a >> unit address. >> >> Implement a check for this. The code doesn't validate the format of the >> unit address; ePAPR implies this may vary from binding to binding, so >> I'm not sure that it's possible to validate the value itself. ... > Anyway, I think it'd be better to produce warnings than errors for > this. That way we could also merge it now while the trees are fixed > up. Yes, that makes sense. > Also, maybe warn for @0x<foo>, which is another unpreferred syntax, it > should just be @<foo> (with foo being in hex). ePAPR doesn't seem to disallow that; it explicitly says that the unit-address consists of the characters from table 2-1, which is the same table of characters used for the node name itself. However, it does state that the binding for a particular bus may impose additional restrictions; should I implement such a check but limit it to the root node or specific known bus types? That would require explicitly whitelisting the check for a lot of bus types, given that each I2C/... controller binding is a bus type... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
