On 01-04-16, 08:57, Nishanth Menon wrote: > On 04/01/2016 02:53 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 4:49 PM, Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Rob, > >> > >> On 01/04/16 04:40, Rob Herring wrote: > >>> You may have noticed that linux-next had gotten noisy with dtc > >>> warnings lately. I dropped the change for a bit, but added it back > >>> today except now it is disabled unless building with "W=1". > >>> > >>> There's ~25K (2500 unique) warnings generated from the ARM dts files. > >>> Here's the ranking of warnings by dtb. OMAP is the clear winner (based > >>> on the similar counts, probably lots of duplicates). Please help > >>> remind contributors to test with W=1 and start to fix these. > >>> > >>> At least for memory nodes, I plan to whitelist allowing no > >>> unit-address. There could be others, but none that I've seen so far. > >> > >> What's the correct way to fix nodes for display platform devices? For > >> example, omap4-panda-common.dtsi has two connector nodes: > >> > >> dvi0: connector@0 { > >> compatible = "dvi-connector"; > >> label = "dvi"; > >> ... > >> }; > >> > >> > >> hdmi0: connector@1 { > >> compatible = "hdmi-connector"; > >> label = "hdmi"; > >> ... > >> }; > > > > I have the same doubts. The ePAPR says in that case "the node-name > > alone differentiates the node from other nodes at the same level in > > the tree.". But which is preferred? Differentiating by number or by > > type? > > > > Similarly, what to do with the opp modes (a lot of warnings) in > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/opp/opp.txt? What warnings are you talking about ? -- viresh -- 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