Re: [RFC 6/9] dt-bindings: vendor-prefixes: add a PCI prefix for Qualcomm Atheros

[Bartosz Golaszewski]

On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 10:17 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 09/01/2024 03:56, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 12:22 PM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdevpl> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 8:10 PM Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Jan 04, 2024 at 02:01:20PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> >>>> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>
> >>>> Document the PCI vendor prefix for Qualcomm Atheros so that we can
> >>>> define the QCA PCI devices on device tree.
> >>>
> >>> Why? vendor-prefixes.yaml is only applied to property names. 'qca'
> >>> should be the prefix for those.
> >>>
> >>> Rob
> >>
> >> I didn't have any better idea. PCI devices on DT are defined by their
> >> "pci<vendor ID>,<model ID>" compatible, not regular human-readable
> >> strings and this makes checkpatch.pl complain.
> >>
> >> I'm open to suggestions.
> >
> > The checkpatch.pl check predates schemas and we could consider just
> > dropping it. The only thing it provides is checking a patch rather
> > than the tree (which the schema do). It's pretty hacky because it just
> > greps the tree for a compatible string which is not entirely accurate.
> > Also, we can extract an exact list of compatibles with
> > "dt-extract-compatibles" which would make a better check, but I'm not
> > sure making dtschema a dependency on checkpatch would be good.
> >
> > The other option is just ignore the warning. PCI compatibles are fairly rare.
>
> Yep, the same warnings are for EEPROM and USB VID/PID compatibles, and
> we live with these, so I don't think PCI should be treated differently.
>

Got it, I will drop this patch.

Bart