Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20211207140334.10461-1-semen.protsenko@linaro.org> <CAPLW+4n-BjSHK4gdP=cGvAE+pZDfvYTO4yy09yNRJgSXt2VArg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPLW+4n-BjSHK4gdP=cGvAE+pZDfvYTO4yy09yNRJgSXt2VArg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 8 Feb 2022 14:02:24 -0600
Message-ID: <CAL_JsqJ3CwT-iuf2NoM=sjPr-Qowzv61Gtv_zvSAoyj7qdZMNA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kbuild: Report enabled nodes with duplicated address
To:     Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@linaro.org>
Cc:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@markovi.net>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com>,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-samsung-soc <linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 10:11 AM Sam Protsenko
<semen.protsenko@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 at 16:03, Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > Duplicated unit address is a normal case, as long as no more than one
> > node using that address is enabled. Having duplicated addresses is
> > already allowed by '-Wno-unique_unit_address' in DTC_FLAGS. But two
> > simultaneously enabled nodes sharing the same address is usually
> > incorrect. Add '-Wunique_unit_address_if_enabled' flag to report
> > warnings for such case when doing "make dtbs_check".
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@linaro.org>
> > Reported-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
> > Suggested-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
> > ---
> > NOTE: After applying this patch, a lot of warnings appear on "make
> > dtbs_check". I'm not completely sure if it's ok, so feel free to Nack.
> >
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> Do you think this patch is feasible? You asked me to send it before,
> though I now see it leads to a lot of errors being revealed when doing
> "make dtbs" and "make dtbs_check". Please let me know if it's Ack or
> Nack -- I'm fine with any resolution, just want to know if I should
> continue to carry it in my local branch or drop it.

Sorry, I'd missed this. Anyway, since there are lots of warnings, we
can't apply this.

Rob