Quoting Sai Prakash Ranjan (2019-11-13 07:00:40) > Hello Rob, > > On 2019-10-25 13:24, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote: > > On 2019-10-25 04:03, Rob Herring wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 6:00 AM Sai Prakash Ranjan > >> <saiprakash.ranjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Rob, > >>> > >>> On 2019-10-24 01:19, Rob Herring wrote: > >>> > On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 10:32 PM Bjorn Andersson > >>> > <bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> >> > >>> >> On Sat 19 Oct 04:37 PDT 2019, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote: > >>> >> > >>> >> > LLCC behaviour is controlled by the configuration data set > >>> >> > in the llcc-qcom driver, add the same for SC7180 SoC. > >>> >> > Also convert the existing bindings to json-schema and add > >>> >> > the compatible for SC7180 SoC. > >>> >> > > >>> >> > >>> >> Thanks for the patches and thanks for the review Stephen. Series > >>> >> applied > >>> > > >>> > And they break dt_binding_check. Please fix. > >>> > > >>> > >>> I did check this and think that the error log from dt_binding_check > >>> is > >>> not valid because it says cache-level is a required property [1], but > >>> there is no such property in LLCC bindings. > >> > >> Then you should point out the issue and not just submit stuff ignoring > >> it. It has to be resolved one way or another. > >> > > > > I did not ignore it. When I ran the dt-binding check locally, it did > > not > > error out and just passed on [1] and it was my bad that I did not check > > the entire build logs to see if llcc dt binding check had some warning > > or > > not. But this is the usual case where most of us don't look at the > > entire > > build logs to check if there is a warning or not. We notice if there is > > an > > immediate exit/fail in case of some warning/error. So it would be good > > if > > we fail the dt-binding check build if there is some warning/error or > > atleast > > provide some option to strict build to fail on warning, maybe there is > > already > > a flag to do this? > > > > After submitting the patch, I noticed this build failure on > > patchwork.ozlabs.org and was waiting for your reply. > > > > [1] https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/jNK8yfVkMG/ > > > >> If you refer to the DT spec[1], cache-level is required. The schema is > >> just enforcing that now. It's keying off the node name of > >> 'cache-controller'. > >> > > > > This is not L2 or L3 cache, this is a system cache (last level cache) > > shared by > > clients other than just CPU. So I don't know how do we specify > > cache-level for > > this, let me know if you have some pointers. > > > > Any ideas on specifying the cache-level for system cache? Does > dt-binding-check > needs to be updated for this case? > I don't see how 'cache-level' fits here. Maybe the node name should be changed to 'system-cache-controller' and then the schema checker can skip it?
