Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Date:   Fri, 25 Mar 2022 14:43:51 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc:     Kuldeep Singh <singh.kuldeep87k@gmail.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <vireshk@kernel.org>,
        Shiraz Hashim <shiraz.linux.kernel@gmail.com>,
        SoC Team <soc@kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        DTML <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: dts: spear13xx: Update SPI dma properties
Message-ID: <20220325091351.5vb4p37g2qi2mseh@vireshk-i7>
References: <20220323175920.93155-1-singh.kuldeep87k@gmail.com>
 <20220324023904.h2qfxzxlznggbsyr@vireshk-i7>
 <20220324062547.GA15504@9a2d8922b8f1>
 <20220325015849.sazvlevnvdqj5z42@vireshk-i7>
 <CAK8P3a0Q8eOTeRmd5-G8rNCKAcH+4HReCsOAGKd4Vq30C9TaEA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a0Q8eOTeRmd5-G8rNCKAcH+4HReCsOAGKd4Vq30C9TaEA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716-391-311a52
Precedence: bulk

On 25-03-22, 10:11, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 2:58 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> > On 24-03-22, 11:55, Kuldeep Singh wrote:
> > > Fixed order of values is important in case of properties like
> > > compatibles etc. In case of dma-names, yes order shouldn't matter here.
> > >
> > > This patch is more of appeasing dtbs_check warning rather than fixing
> > > something.
> >
> > Exactly my point. We have seen similar type of issues with other tools, like
> > coccinelle, earlier and such patches were rejected as the kernel was just fine
> > and tooling needs to be fixed.
> >
> > > It's safe to go with this patch.
> > > I am not sure if there's a provision to exclude dma-names from fix
> > > ordering checks. Rob can help here in providing better insights.
> 
> I think it's a question of the scale of the warnings: my understanding is that
> there are only a handful of dts files that trigger the warning at all, and it
> would be rather hard to change the tooling around this. Since the proposed
> dts change is clearly harmless, I don't mind applying it.

I am fine if we want to apply this patch as is.

Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

-- 
viresh