On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 11:46:23PM +0000, Chris Packham wrote:
> >> diff --git a/drivers/edac/mpc85xx_edac.c b/drivers/edac/mpc85xx_edac.c
> >> index 8f66cbed70b7..67f7bc3fe5b3 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/edac/mpc85xx_edac.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/edac/mpc85xx_edac.c
> >> @@ -629,6 +629,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id mpc85xx_l2_err_of_match[] = {
> >> { .compatible = "fsl,p1020-l2-cache-controller", },
> >> { .compatible = "fsl,p1021-l2-cache-controller", },
> >> { .compatible = "fsl,p2020-l2-cache-controller", },
> >> + { .compatible = "fsl,t2080-l2-cache-controller", },
> >
> > WARNING: DT compatible string "fsl,t2080-l2-cache-controller" appears un-documented -- check ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/
> > #58: FILE: drivers/edac/mpc85xx_edac.c:632:
> > + { .compatible = "fsl,t2080-l2-cache-controller", },
> >
> > What is checkpatch.pl trying to tell me here?
> >
>
> checpkatch.pl is confused by
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/powerpc/fsl/l2cache.txt which says
>
> - compatible : Should include "fsl,chip-l2-cache-controller" and "cache"
> where chip is the processor (bsc9132, npc8572 etc.)
>
> So none of the fsl cache controllers pass the checkpatch.pl test.
Hmm, so others do list those names explicitly. For example:
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/allwinner,sunxi-pinctrl.txt
And the patch that added that check to cp:
bff5da433525 ("checkpatch: add DT compatible string documentation checks")
is basically to enforce explicit compatible names.
So I'd like to have an ACK from a PPC maintainer here first before I
apply this.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
--
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
