On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 2:58 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 24-03-22, 11:55, Kuldeep Singh wrote:
> > Fixed order of values is important in case of properties like
> > compatibles etc. In case of dma-names, yes order shouldn't matter here.
> >
> > This patch is more of appeasing dtbs_check warning rather than fixing
> > something.
>
> Exactly my point. We have seen similar type of issues with other tools, like
> coccinelle, earlier and such patches were rejected as the kernel was just fine
> and tooling needs to be fixed.
>
> > It's safe to go with this patch.
> > I am not sure if there's a provision to exclude dma-names from fix
> > ordering checks. Rob can help here in providing better insights.
I think it's a question of the scale of the warnings: my understanding is that
there are only a handful of dts files that trigger the warning at all, and it
would be rather hard to change the tooling around this. Since the proposed
dts change is clearly harmless, I don't mind applying it.
Kuldeep, you have probably looked at all dts files in the kernel, can you
say how many of them are affected by the dma property reordering?
Arnd
