On 20/08/2024 16:36, Andrea della Porta wrote:

RP1 is an MFD chipset that acts as a south-bridge PCIe endpoint sporting
a pletora of subdevices (i.e.  Ethernet, USB host controller, I2C, PWM, 
etc.) whose registers are all reachable starting from an offset from the
BAR address.  The main point here is that while the RP1 as an endpoint
itself is discoverable via usual PCI enumeraiton, the devices it contains
are not discoverable and must be declared e.g. via the devicetree.

This patchset is an attempt to provide a minimum infrastructure to allow
the RP1 chipset to be discovered and perpherals it contains to be added
from a devictree overlay loaded during RP1 PCI endpoint enumeration.
Followup patches should add support for the several peripherals contained
in RP1.

This work is based upon dowstream drivers code and the proposal from RH
et al. (see [1] and [2]). A similar approach is also pursued in [3].

Looking briefly at findings it seems this was not really tested by
automation and you expect reviewers to find issues which are pointed out
by tools. That's not nice approach. Reviewer's time is limited, while
tools do it for free. And the tools are free - you can use them without
any effort.

It does not look like you tested the DTS against bindings. Please run
`make dtbs_check W=1` (see
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/writing-schema.rst or
https://www.linaro.org/blog/tips-and-tricks-for-validating-devicetree-sources-with-the-devicetree-schema/
for instructions).

Please run standard kernel tools for static analysis, like coccinelle,
smatch and sparse, and fix reported warnings. Also please check for
warnings when building with W=1. Most of these commands (checks or W=1
build) can build specific targets, like some directory, to narrow the
scope to only your code. The code here looks like it needs a fix. Feel
free to get in touch if the warning is not clear.

Please run scripts/checkpatch.pl and fix reported warnings. Then please
run `scripts/checkpatch.pl --strict` and (probably) fix more warnings.
Some warnings can be ignored, especially from --strict run, but the code
here looks like it needs a fix. Feel free to get in touch if the warning
is not clear.


Best regards,
Krzysztof