Re: [PATCH v3 03/12] dt-bindings: i2c: Discard i2c-slave flag from the DW I2C example

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 03:07:16PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 12:30:04PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 1:00 AM Serge Semin
> > <Sergey.Semin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > dtc currently doesn't support I2C_OWN_SLAVE_ADDRESS flag set in the
> > > i2c "reg" property. If it is the compiler will print a warning:
> > 
> > Shouldn't be dtc whatever tools fixed?
> 
> See the first patch in the series.

I can't by the reason that I have no such. I also answered to cover letter
about it.

> > > Warning (i2c_bus_reg): /example-2/i2c@1120000/eeprom@64: I2C bus unit address format error, expected "40000064"
> > > Warning (i2c_bus_reg): /example-2/i2c@1120000/eeprom@64:reg: I2C address must be less than 10-bits, got "0x40000064"
> > >
> > > In order to silence dtc up let's discard the flag from the DW I2C DT
> > > binding example for now. Just revert this commit when dtc is fixed.
> > 
> > Doesn't sound like a good idea. If user happens in between of these
> > ping-pong change, how they will know this subtle issue?
> 
> As I see it, there are three ways we can follow.
> 1) Apply the patch and revert when dtc is fixed.
> 2) Apply the patch, but add a comment above the property, that we need
>    to get the 0x40000064 address back when dtc is dixed.
> 3) Leave this ugly warning be until dtc is fixed.
> 
> In a comment to v2 Rob mentioned a solution like 1). Personally I am ok with
> either, though I'd like to see a Rob's final comment about this.

Yes, let's follow what Rob proposes.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko