Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200516154314.14769-1-digetx@gmail.com> <CAPDyKFo_Xp-zipqE26iMv4CFwUoMCQZy3Zr63Cp=uzePgWX7BA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b634e7a5-9a30-3bd1-126d-be62e4dd73e1@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <b634e7a5-9a30-3bd1-126d-be62e4dd73e1@gmail.com>
From:   Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
Date:   Tue, 19 May 2020 17:29:59 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPDyKFq4MoEzLr3Mgk0-4JWeB3khKawMC+bCEKDNiNKn3tUarg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] sdhci: tegra: Remove warnings about missing
 device-tree properties
To:     Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com>
Cc:     Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
        Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
        "linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org" <linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-tegra <linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 19 May 2020 at 16:05, Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 19.05.2020 10:28, Ulf Hansson =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5=D1=82:
> > On Sat, 16 May 2020 at 17:44, Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Several people asked me about the MMC warnings in the KMSG log and
> >> I had to tell to ignore them because these warning are irrelevant to
> >> pre-Tegra210 SoCs.
> >
> > Why are the warnings irrelevant?
>
> That's what the DT binding doc says [1].
>
> [1]
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/nvidia%2=
Ctegra20-sdhci.txt
>
> Although, looking at the driver's code and TRM docs, it seems that all
> those properties are really irrelevant only to the older Terga20 SoC. So
> the binding doc is a bit misleading.
>
> Nevertheless, the binding explicitly says that the properties are
> optional, which is correct.
>
> >> It should be up to a board's device-tree writer to
> >> properly describe all the necessary properties. Secondly, eventually a=
ll
> >> device-tree bindings will be converted to YAML, which allows to valida=
te
> >> board DT files, giving a warning about missing properties. Hence let's
> >> remove the noisy warnings to stop the confusion.
> >
> > Yep, makes sense. However, perhaps we should do this conversion then,
> > rather than first drop the warnings?
>
> I don't mind to postpone this patch. But again, IIUC, all these
> properties are optional, and thus, there is no critical need to verify
> them in DT right now, it could be done later on.

Ok, fair enough.

Applied for next, thanks!

Kind regards
Uffe