On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 10:17 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 09/01/2024 03:56, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 12:22 PM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 8:10 PM Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Thu, Jan 04, 2024 at 02:01:20PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > >>>> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>>> > >>>> Document the PCI vendor prefix for Qualcomm Atheros so that we can > >>>> define the QCA PCI devices on device tree. > >>> > >>> Why? vendor-prefixes.yaml is only applied to property names. 'qca' > >>> should be the prefix for those. > >>> > >>> Rob > >> > >> I didn't have any better idea. PCI devices on DT are defined by their > >> "pci<vendor ID>,<model ID>" compatible, not regular human-readable > >> strings and this makes checkpatch.pl complain. > >> > >> I'm open to suggestions. > > > > The checkpatch.pl check predates schemas and we could consider just > > dropping it. The only thing it provides is checking a patch rather > > than the tree (which the schema do). It's pretty hacky because it just > > greps the tree for a compatible string which is not entirely accurate. > > Also, we can extract an exact list of compatibles with > > "dt-extract-compatibles" which would make a better check, but I'm not > > sure making dtschema a dependency on checkpatch would be good. > > > > The other option is just ignore the warning. PCI compatibles are fairly rare. > > Yep, the same warnings are for EEPROM and USB VID/PID compatibles, and > we live with these, so I don't think PCI should be treated differently. > Got it, I will drop this patch. Bart
