On 20/08/2024 16:36, Andrea della Porta wrote: > RP1 is an MFD chipset that acts as a south-bridge PCIe endpoint sporting > a pletora of subdevices (i.e. Ethernet, USB host controller, I2C, PWM, > etc.) whose registers are all reachable starting from an offset from the > BAR address. The main point here is that while the RP1 as an endpoint > itself is discoverable via usual PCI enumeraiton, the devices it contains > are not discoverable and must be declared e.g. via the devicetree. > > This patchset is an attempt to provide a minimum infrastructure to allow > the RP1 chipset to be discovered and perpherals it contains to be added > from a devictree overlay loaded during RP1 PCI endpoint enumeration. > Followup patches should add support for the several peripherals contained > in RP1. > > This work is based upon dowstream drivers code and the proposal from RH > et al. (see [1] and [2]). A similar approach is also pursued in [3]. Looking briefly at findings it seems this was not really tested by automation and you expect reviewers to find issues which are pointed out by tools. That's not nice approach. Reviewer's time is limited, while tools do it for free. And the tools are free - you can use them without any effort. It does not look like you tested the DTS against bindings. Please run `make dtbs_check W=1` (see Documentation/devicetree/bindings/writing-schema.rst or https://www.linaro.org/blog/tips-and-tricks-for-validating-devicetree-sources-with-the-devicetree-schema/ for instructions). Please run standard kernel tools for static analysis, like coccinelle, smatch and sparse, and fix reported warnings. Also please check for warnings when building with W=1. Most of these commands (checks or W=1 build) can build specific targets, like some directory, to narrow the scope to only your code. The code here looks like it needs a fix. Feel free to get in touch if the warning is not clear. Please run scripts/checkpatch.pl and fix reported warnings. Then please run `scripts/checkpatch.pl --strict` and (probably) fix more warnings. Some warnings can be ignored, especially from --strict run, but the code here looks like it needs a fix. Feel free to get in touch if the warning is not clear. Best regards, Krzysztof
