On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 08:57:11AM +0100, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
> Hi David,
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:21 AM, David Daney <email@example.com>
> > On 11/29/2017 12:55 PM, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
> >> Improve the binding example by removing all the leading 0x to fix the
> >> following dtc warnings:
> >> Warning (unit_address_format): Node /XXX unit name should not have leading
> >> "0x"
> > How does it fix the warnings? You are not changing the .dts files that are
> > compiled.
If the examples were compiled, then they would have this warning...
> I originally only wanted to fix [...]watchdog/ingenic,jz4740-wdt.txt,
> but when I lookup git log, I eventually found out about the commit I
> refer to in my commit message:
> and I simply followed suggestion from Rob:
> > This may also cause the binding documentation to differ from the reality of
> > what the actual device trees contain.
> Chicken or the egg dilemma, but you understand that linux master tree
> still has the original warning:
> $ perl -p -i -e 's/\@0+([0-9a-f])/\@$1/g' `find ./ -type f \( -iname
> \*.dtsi -o -iname \*.dts \)`
> $ git diff | diffstat
> 40 files changed, 160 insertions(+), 160 deletions(-)
> And those are real W=1 actual warnings. Do you want me to re-submit it
> as patch series instead which fix both the documentation side and the
> dts* files ?
Some of those I skipped on purpose (they don't really follow standard
unit-address), but I does look like some new ones got in. I'm not sure
why I skipped PPC and xtensa altogether.
No need to fix everything, everywhere (but more patches always welcome
I'll apply this. Thanks.