Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Message-ID: <5dcd8588.1c69fb81.2528a.3460@mx.google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: <1565197bda60573937453e95dcafbe68@codeaurora.org>
References: <cover.1571484439.git.saiprakash.ranjan@codeaurora.org> <20191021033220.GG4500@tuxbook-pro> <CAL_JsqLzRRQe8UZCxgXArVNhNry7PgMCthAR2aZNcm6CCEpvDA@mail.gmail.com> <2fbab8bc38be37fba976d34b2f89e720@codeaurora.org> <CAL_Jsq+5p7gQzDfGipNFr1ry-Pc3pDJpcXnAqdX9eo0HLETATQ@mail.gmail.com> <81f57dc623fe8705cea52b5cb2612b32@codeaurora.org> <1565197bda60573937453e95dcafbe68@codeaurora.org>
Cc:     Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@codeaurora.org>,
        Rishabh Bhatnagar <rishabhb@codeaurora.org>,
        Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>,
        linux-arm-msm-owner@vger.kernel.org
To:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan@codeaurora.org>
From:   Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 0/3] Add LLCC support for SC7180 SoC
User-Agent: alot/0.8.1
Date:   Thu, 14 Nov 2019 08:49:11 -0800
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Quoting Sai Prakash Ranjan (2019-11-13 07:00:40)
> Hello Rob,
>=20
> On 2019-10-25 13:24, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
> > On 2019-10-25 04:03, Rob Herring wrote:
> >> On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 6:00 AM Sai Prakash Ranjan
> >> <saiprakash.ranjan@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> >>>=20
> >>> Hi Rob,
> >>>=20
> >>> On 2019-10-24 01:19, Rob Herring wrote:
> >>> > On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 10:32 PM Bjorn Andersson
> >>> > <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org> wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On Sat 19 Oct 04:37 PDT 2019, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> > 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.
> >>> >
> >>>=20
> >>> I did check this and think that the error log from dt_binding_check=20
> >>> is
> >>> not valid because it says cache-level is a required property [1], but
> >>> there is no such property in LLCC bindings.
> >>=20
> >> Then you should point out the issue and not just submit stuff ignoring
> >> it. It has to be resolved one way or another.
> >>=20
> >=20
> > I did not ignore it. When I ran the dt-binding check locally, it did=20
> > 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=20
> > entire
> > build logs to check if there is a warning or not. We notice if there is=
=20
> > 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=20
> > atleast
> > provide some option to strict build to fail on warning, maybe there is =

> > already
> > a flag to do this?
> >=20
> > After submitting the patch, I noticed this build failure on
> > patchwork.ozlabs.org and was waiting for your reply.
> >=20
> > [1] https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/jNK8yfVkMG/
> >=20
> >> 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'.
> >>=20
> >=20
> > This is not L2 or L3 cache, this is a system cache (last level cache)=20
> > shared by
> > clients other than just CPU. So I don't know how do we specify=20
> > cache-level for
> > this, let me know if you have some pointers.
> >=20
>=20
> Any ideas on specifying the cache-level for system cache? Does=20
> dt-binding-check
> needs to be updated for this case?
>=20

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?