Quoting Sai Prakash Ranjan (2019-11-13 07:00:40)
Hello Rob,
On 2019-10-25 13:24, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
quoted
On 2019-10-25 04:03, Rob Herring wrote:
quoted
On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 6:00 AM Sai Prakash Ranjan
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Hi Rob,
On 2019-10-24 01:19, Rob Herring wrote:
quoted
On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 10:32 PM Bjorn Andersson
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Sat 19 Oct 04:37 PDT 2019, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
quoted
LLCC behaviour is controlled by the configuration data set
in the llcc-qcom driver, add the same for SC7180 SoC.
Also convert the existing bindings to json-schema and add
the compatible for SC7180 SoC.
Thanks for the patches and thanks for the review Stephen. Series
applied
And they break dt_binding_check. Please fix.
I did check this and think that the error log from dt_binding_check
is
not valid because it says cache-level is a required property [1], but
there is no such property in LLCC bindings.
Then you should point out the issue and not just submit stuff ignoring
it. It has to be resolved one way or another.
I did not ignore it. When I ran the dt-binding check locally, it did
not
error out and just passed on [1] and it was my bad that I did not check
the entire build logs to see if llcc dt binding check had some warning
or
not. But this is the usual case where most of us don't look at the
entire
build logs to check if there is a warning or not. We notice if there is
an
immediate exit/fail in case of some warning/error. So it would be good
if
we fail the dt-binding check build if there is some warning/error or
atleast
provide some option to strict build to fail on warning, maybe there is
already
a flag to do this?
After submitting the patch, I noticed this build failure on
patchwork.ozlabs.org and was waiting for your reply.
[1] https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/jNK8yfVkMG/
quoted
If you refer to the DT spec[1], cache-level is required. The schema is
just enforcing that now. It's keying off the node name of
'cache-controller'.
This is not L2 or L3 cache, this is a system cache (last level cache)
shared by
clients other than just CPU. So I don't know how do we specify
cache-level for
this, let me know if you have some pointers.
Any ideas on specifying the cache-level for system cache? Does
dt-binding-check
needs to be updated for this case?
I don't see how 'cache-level' fits here. Maybe the node name should be
changed to 'system-cache-controller' and then the schema checker can
skip it?