Hello Arnd, On 19.04.21 15:57, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 2:23 PM Alexandre TORGUE > <alexandre.torgue@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 4/15/21 12:43 PM, Ahmad Fatoum wrote: >>> I think my rationale for the patch above was sound, so I think the checker >>> taking offense at the DSI cells here should be considered a false positive. >> >> If it's a "false positive" warning then we need to find a way to not >> print it out. Else, it'll be difficult to distinguish which warnings are >> "normal" and which are not. This question could also be applied to patch[3]. >> >> Arnd, Rob what is your feeling about this case ? > > I don't have a strong opinion on this either way, but I would just > not apply this one for 5.13 in this case. Rob, Alexandre, please > let me know if I should apply the other patches before the > merge window, I usually don't mind taking bugfixes late before the > merge window, but I still want some level of confidence that they > are actually correct. > > Ahmad, if you feel strongly about this particular issue, would you like > to suggest a patch for the checker? The check is certainly useful. If it's not feasible to fix the checker (e.g. because it analyzes standalone DTSIs), I am fine with reverting my commit with an indication that this is to avoid triggering a dt-validate false positive. I am not familiar with dt-validate's inner workings to offer a patch. Cheers, Ahmad > > Arnd > -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
