On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 03:07:16PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:

On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 12:30:04PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

quoted

On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 1:00 AM Serge Semin
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

dtc currently doesn't support I2C_OWN_SLAVE_ADDRESS flag set in the
i2c "reg" property. If it is the compiler will print a warning:

Shouldn't be dtc whatever tools fixed?

See the first patch in the series.

I can't by the reason that I have no such. I also answered to cover letter
about it.

quoted

quoted

Warning (i2c_bus_reg): /example-2/i2c@1120000/eeprom@64: I2C bus unit address format error, expected "40000064"
Warning (i2c_bus_reg): /example-2/i2c@1120000/eeprom@64:reg: I2C address must be less than 10-bits, got "0x40000064"

In order to silence dtc up let's discard the flag from the DW I2C DT
binding example for now. Just revert this commit when dtc is fixed.

Doesn't sound like a good idea. If user happens in between of these
ping-pong change, how they will know this subtle issue?

As I see it, there are three ways we can follow.
1) Apply the patch and revert when dtc is fixed.
2) Apply the patch, but add a comment above the property, that we need
   to get the 0x40000064 address back when dtc is dixed.
3) Leave this ugly warning be until dtc is fixed.

In a comment to v2 Rob mentioned a solution like 1). Personally I am ok with
either, though I'd like to see a Rob's final comment about this.

Yes, let's follow what Rob proposes.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko