From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Gibson Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Warn on node name unit-addresses with '0x' or leading 0s Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 16:47:46 +1100 Message-ID: <20160223054746.GT2808@voom.fritz.box> References: <1455223619-16052-1-git-send-email-robh@kernel.org> <1455223619-16052-3-git-send-email-robh@kernel.org> <20160219050709.GB15224@voom.fritz.box> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="rBVNTu5JXDAWzN2S" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: devicetree-compiler-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Rob Herring Cc: devicetree-compiler-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, "devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , Stephen Warren List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org --rBVNTu5JXDAWzN2S Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 10:51:46AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 11:07 PM, David Gibson > wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 02:46:59PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > >> Node name unit-addresses should never begin with 0x or leading 0s > >> regardless of whether they have a bus specific address (i.e. one with > >> commas) or not. Add warnings to check for these cases. > > > > Hmm.. I'm pretty sure that's true in practice, but it's not true in > > theory. A bus could define it's unit address format just about > > however it wants, including with leading 0s. >=20 > Only if it is not reviewed... This whole check is about what best > practices are, not what is possible. Hmm. dtc checks are really about checking for best practice at the level of individual dts files, though, not bindings. > > I think a better approach would be to add a test specific to > > simple-bus devices (by looking at compatible on the parent) that fully > > checks the unit address. > > > > From there we can start adding tests for other bus types. >=20 > simple-bus is easy enough, So, start with that, then tackle the next problem. > but then next up would be I2C and SPI. We > can't generically tell if a node is on I2C or SPI bus. Why not? Or perhaps.. how generically do you need? I think having a big list of i2c / spi controllers would be acceptable here, if not ideal. > If we do have > some bus with wacky addresses, it should definitely have a bus > compatible and then we can simply exclude it from the check. >=20 > Another option would be skipping the test if there are any commas (or > periods, etc.) in the unit address. That's pretty rare to begin with > and a single number is pretty much not a bus specific unit-address. Um.. no.. there are definitely bus types that don't typically use commas. ISA, for one. --=20 David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson --rBVNTu5JXDAWzN2S Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJWy/KCAAoJEGw4ysog2bOSAMsP/RaVPPt3Yt1QOq2Gl7YEzxTx 0gRdjKSyUGsx/iXnwml5cF0pIsVlVDtOzwSjyFa/SwmqRA5R8Hr/IWeIjGqlEvZ7 VVi6Am6IG7UysOPaCR3DSoaB/jbZ41WVcmJGcBQqwtqAC9OPRy0F9qHuBxqDXSFq KFwIS1QoLhSrFYf/hF8xqyPUlZNBm0zdeRJ3PaJbwqx76pRy7fYeo/O/575Enl9W SBzk6Yd3/4LOVpJL3y1aJPDR+7/iK+Uch5/Sstx1uUw5DZ8LMz3aqgYq3xVE2NuP U4XyENAt7burh+b6lMYO+acloItubvJOsWcIsPTj/nZRk5H3Eg1+5RUeKpmc95lo mN9M5HRescufvs/BH89lL1e6O5nHl3hVY4wOsw3X/1zFEd4VcCRXoGxisomMyTk3 m1ZQQgB1OQp6Ee/cqwzYfrpuV93Bp/ftyc9s62wLU6cuyv176S01xgu2TQURGbEL 7AI0fqRrkyY87Do66G7rXR3S0+weREh0+vmOXu9HbEKk/AAIJqk0aTAIXYpprp5I F46p4Wh/70jsWsjxfoA3mN10NwLb7gYBtMeErqaxsaI2J+dHbVXCaVWgo43PokCi xILHKjePPuwo9mk4Goh51MC1A7FsKvJjFFtGQSpQ4UkHn237f+yWirhBEZvuVE26 xS38VeMigCSfFhEyzcS8 =49e/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --rBVNTu5JXDAWzN2S--