Re: [PATCH v2] EDAC: mpc85xx: Add T2080 l2-cache support

Borislav Petkov [off-list ref] writes:

On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 11:46:23PM +0000, Chris Packham wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

diff --git a/drivers/edac/mpc85xx_edac.c b/drivers/edac/mpc85xx_edac.c
index 8f66cbed70b7..67f7bc3fe5b3 100644
--- a/drivers/edac/mpc85xx_edac.c
+++ b/drivers/edac/mpc85xx_edac.c

@@ -629,6 +629,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id mpc85xx_l2_err_of_match[] = {
 	{ .compatible = "fsl,p1020-l2-cache-controller", },
 	{ .compatible = "fsl,p1021-l2-cache-controller", },
 	{ .compatible = "fsl,p2020-l2-cache-controller", },
+	{ .compatible = "fsl,t2080-l2-cache-controller", },

WARNING: DT compatible string "fsl,t2080-l2-cache-controller" appears un-documented -- check ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/
#58: FILE: drivers/edac/mpc85xx_edac.c:632:
+       { .compatible = "fsl,t2080-l2-cache-controller", },

What is checkpatch.pl trying to tell me here?

checpkatch.pl is confused by 
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/powerpc/fsl/l2cache.txt which says

- compatible    : Should include "fsl,chip-l2-cache-controller" and "cache"
                   where chip is the processor (bsc9132, npc8572 etc.)

So none of the fsl cache controllers pass the checkpatch.pl test.

Hmm, so others do list those names explicitly. For example:

Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/allwinner,sunxi-pinctrl.txt

And the patch that added that check to cp:

bff5da433525 ("checkpatch: add DT compatible string documentation checks")

is basically to enforce explicit compatible names.

So I'd like to have an ACK from a PPC maintainer here first before I
apply this.

It's fine with me:

Acked-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>


Chris if you want to send a patch to add the compatible string to the
l2cache.txt I would merge that, but honestly it doesn't achieve much
other than possibly catching a typo in the compatible name.

cheers