On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 10:11:41AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > 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? I have checked spi-pl022.yaml as of now and this was the only one which was affected with dma ordering. For all dts files, I can definitely give a try and will come up with some numbers. Please note, there are still bindings left to be converted to yaml format, so won't be able to catch those cases. - Kuldeep
