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. Best regards, Krzysztof
