Re: [PATCH 12/13] ARM: dts: stm32: fix DSI port node on STM32MP15

From: Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@pengutronix.de>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Alexandre TORGUE <alexandre.torgue@foss.st.com>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>, Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>,
	Jagan Teki <jagan@amarulasolutions.com>,
	Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>,
	Marcin Sloniewski <marcin.sloniewski@gmail.com>,
	Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	DTML <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/13] ARM: dts: stm32: fix DSI port node on STM32MP15
Date: Tue, 4 May 2021 15:16:55 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5f12a950-ec62-89b4-e22f-4b4a84048f8f@pengutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a1bGAUbqTGqyz+PB=7fuVLkJce0awtx1Z9PE3uiX6uysQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Arnd,

On 19.04.21 15:57, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 2:23 PM Alexandre TORGUE
> <alexandre.torgue@foss.st.com> wrote:
>> On 4/15/21 12:43 PM, Ahmad Fatoum wrote:
>>> I think my rationale for the patch above was sound, so I think the checker
>>> taking offense at the DSI cells here should be considered a false positive.
>>
>> If it's a "false positive" warning then we need to find a way to not
>> print it out. Else, it'll be difficult to distinguish which warnings are
>> "normal" and which are not. This question could also be applied to patch[3].
>>
>> Arnd, Rob what is your feeling about this case ?
> 
> I don't have a strong opinion on this either way, but I would just
> not apply this one for 5.13 in this case. Rob, Alexandre, please
> let me know if I should apply the other patches before the
> merge window, I usually don't mind taking bugfixes late before the
> merge window, but I still want some level of confidence that they
> are actually correct.
> 
> Ahmad, if you feel strongly about this particular issue, would you like
> to suggest a patch for the checker?

The check is certainly useful. If it's not feasible to fix the checker (e.g.
because it analyzes standalone DTSIs), I am fine with reverting my commit
with an indication that this is to avoid triggering a dt-validate false
positive.

I am not familiar with dt-validate's inner workings to offer a patch.

Cheers,
Ahmad

> 
>         Arnd
> 

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Steuerwalder Str. 21                       | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany                  | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |