| Message ID | 20230529091359.71987-3-raphael.gallais-pou@foss.st.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | STM32 warning cleanup | expand |
On Mon, 29 May 2023 11:13:57 +0200, Raphael Gallais-Pou wrote: > "#address-cells" and "#size-cells" are two properties that are not > mandatory. For instance, the DSI could refer to a bridge outside the scope > of the node rather than include a 'panel@0' subnode. By doing so, address > and size fields become then unnecessary, creating a warning at build time. > > Signed-off-by: Raphael Gallais-Pou <raphael.gallais-pou@foss.st.com> > Acked-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com> > Reviewed-by: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de> > --- > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/st,stm32-dsi.yaml | 2 -- > 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) > Running 'make dtbs_check' with the schema in this patch gives the following warnings. Consider if they are expected or the schema is incorrect. These may not be new warnings. Note that it is not yet a requirement to have 0 warnings for dtbs_check. This will change in the future. Full log is available here: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1787034 dsi@40016c00: Unevaluated properties are not allowed ('panel-dsi@0' was unexpected) arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32f469-disco.dtb dsi@5a000000: Unevaluated properties are not allowed ('panel-dsi@0' was unexpected) arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157c-ev1.dtb arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157c-ev1-scmi.dtb
On 5/30/23 14:27, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On Mon, 29 May 2023 11:13:57 +0200, Raphael Gallais-Pou wrote: >> "#address-cells" and "#size-cells" are two properties that are not >> mandatory. For instance, the DSI could refer to a bridge outside the scope >> of the node rather than include a 'panel@0' subnode. By doing so, address >> and size fields become then unnecessary, creating a warning at build time. >> >> Signed-off-by: Raphael Gallais-Pou <raphael.gallais-pou@foss.st.com> >> Acked-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com> >> Reviewed-by: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de> >> --- >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/st,stm32-dsi.yaml | 2 -- >> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) >> > > Running 'make dtbs_check' with the schema in this patch gives the > following warnings. Consider if they are expected or the schema is > incorrect. These may not be new warnings I checked it before merging the series on stm32-next tree. I didn't get this error. I didn't check commit per commit. Do you get this error after merging the whole series ? > > Note that it is not yet a requirement to have 0 warnings for dtbs_check. > This will change in the future. > > Full log is available here: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1787034 > > > dsi@40016c00: Unevaluated properties are not allowed ('panel-dsi@0' was unexpected) > arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32f469-disco.dtb > > dsi@5a000000: Unevaluated properties are not allowed ('panel-dsi@0' was unexpected) > arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157c-ev1.dtb > arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157c-ev1-scmi.dtb
On 5/30/23 15:30, Alexandre TORGUE wrote: > On 5/30/23 14:27, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On Mon, 29 May 2023 11:13:57 +0200, Raphael Gallais-Pou wrote: >>> "#address-cells" and "#size-cells" are two properties that are not >>> mandatory. For instance, the DSI could refer to a bridge outside the scope >>> of the node rather than include a 'panel@0' subnode. By doing so, address >>> and size fields become then unnecessary, creating a warning at build time. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Raphael Gallais-Pou <raphael.gallais-pou@foss.st.com> >>> Acked-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com> >>> Reviewed-by: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de> >>> --- >>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/st,stm32-dsi.yaml | 2 -- >>> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) >>> >> >> Running 'make dtbs_check' with the schema in this patch gives the >> following warnings. Consider if they are expected or the schema is >> incorrect. These may not be new warnings > I checked it before merging the series on stm32-next tree. I didn't get this > error. I didn't check commit per commit. > > Do you get this error after merging the whole series ? I think this is because of the order of the patches within the serie. The patch correcting the yaml is before those modifying the device-trees. This could explain warnings rise up when checking patch per patch. However I did not get any errors on top of the whole serie. > > >> >> Note that it is not yet a requirement to have 0 warnings for dtbs_check. >> This will change in the future. >> >> Full log is available here: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1787034 >> >> >> dsi@40016c00: Unevaluated properties are not allowed ('panel-dsi@0' was >> unexpected) >> arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32f469-disco.dtb >> >> dsi@5a000000: Unevaluated properties are not allowed ('panel-dsi@0' was >> unexpected) >> arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157c-ev1.dtb >> arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157c-ev1-scmi.dtb >
On 30/05/2023 15:38, Raphael Gallais-Pou wrote: > > On 5/30/23 15:30, Alexandre TORGUE wrote: >> On 5/30/23 14:27, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> On Mon, 29 May 2023 11:13:57 +0200, Raphael Gallais-Pou wrote: >>>> "#address-cells" and "#size-cells" are two properties that are not >>>> mandatory. For instance, the DSI could refer to a bridge outside the scope >>>> of the node rather than include a 'panel@0' subnode. By doing so, address >>>> and size fields become then unnecessary, creating a warning at build time. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Raphael Gallais-Pou <raphael.gallais-pou@foss.st.com> >>>> Acked-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com> >>>> Reviewed-by: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de> >>>> --- >>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/st,stm32-dsi.yaml | 2 -- >>>> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) >>>> >>> >>> Running 'make dtbs_check' with the schema in this patch gives the >>> following warnings. Consider if they are expected or the schema is >>> incorrect. These may not be new warnings >> I checked it before merging the series on stm32-next tree. I didn't get this >> error. I didn't check commit per commit. >> >> Do you get this error after merging the whole series ? > > > I think this is because of the order of the patches within the serie. The patch > correcting the yaml is before those modifying the device-trees. This could > explain warnings rise up when checking patch per patch. However I did not get > any errors on top of the whole serie. Yeah. Ignore the report if you tested it by yourself. Best regards, Krzysztof
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/st,stm32-dsi.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/st,stm32-dsi.yaml index c488308d7be1..53560052aaf0 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/st,stm32-dsi.yaml +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/st,stm32-dsi.yaml @@ -74,8 +74,6 @@ properties: - const: 2 required: - - "#address-cells" - - "#size-cells" - compatible - reg - clocks