On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 11:46:23PM +0000, Chris Packham wrote: > >> 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. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.