On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 12:30:04PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 1:00 AM Serge Semin > <Sergey.Semin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > dtc currently doesn't support I2C_OWN_SLAVE_ADDRESS flag set in the > > i2c "reg" property. If it is the compiler will print a warning: > > Shouldn't be dtc whatever tools fixed? See the first patch in the series. > > > Warning (i2c_bus_reg): /example-2/i2c@1120000/eeprom@64: I2C bus unit address format error, expected "40000064" > > Warning (i2c_bus_reg): /example-2/i2c@1120000/eeprom@64:reg: I2C address must be less than 10-bits, got "0x40000064" > > > > In order to silence dtc up let's discard the flag from the DW I2C DT > > binding example for now. Just revert this commit when dtc is fixed. > > Doesn't sound like a good idea. If user happens in between of these > ping-pong change, how they will know this subtle issue? As I see it, there are three ways we can follow. 1) Apply the patch and revert when dtc is fixed. 2) Apply the patch, but add a comment above the property, that we need to get the 0x40000064 address back when dtc is dixed. 3) Leave this ugly warning be until dtc is fixed. In a comment to v2 Rob mentioned a solution like 1). Personally I am ok with either, though I'd like to see a Rob's final comment about this. -Sergey > > -- > With Best Regards, > Andy Shevchenko
