On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 03:07:16PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote: > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 12:30:04PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 1:00 AM Serge Semin > > <Sergey.Semin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > dtc currently doesn't support I2C_OWN_SLAVE_ADDRESS flag set in the > > > i2c "reg" property. If it is the compiler will print a warning: > > > > Shouldn't be dtc whatever tools fixed? > > See the first patch in the series. I can't by the reason that I have no such. I also answered to cover letter about it. > > > Warning (i2c_bus_reg): /example-2/i2c@1120000/eeprom@64: I2C bus unit address format error, expected "40000064" > > > Warning (i2c_bus_reg): /example-2/i2c@1120000/eeprom@64:reg: I2C address must be less than 10-bits, got "0x40000064" > > > > > > In order to silence dtc up let's discard the flag from the DW I2C DT > > > binding example for now. Just revert this commit when dtc is fixed. > > > > Doesn't sound like a good idea. If user happens in between of these > > ping-pong change, how they will know this subtle issue? > > As I see it, there are three ways we can follow. > 1) Apply the patch and revert when dtc is fixed. > 2) Apply the patch, but add a comment above the property, that we need > to get the 0x40000064 address back when dtc is dixed. > 3) Leave this ugly warning be until dtc is fixed. > > In a comment to v2 Rob mentioned a solution like 1). Personally I am ok with > either, though I'd like to see a Rob's final comment about this. Yes, let's follow what Rob proposes. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
