On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 01:35:01PM +0100, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> On 2021-11-12 12:08:39, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 01:26:57AM +0100, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> > > + if (string_len > 0) {
> > > + dev_warn(dev, "qcom,num-strings and
> > > qcom,enabled-strings are ambiguous\n");
> >
> > The warning should also be below the error message on the next if statement.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > This warning occurs even when there is no ambiguity.
> >
> > This could be:
> >
> > if (string_len > 0 && val != string_len)
> >
> > Combined these changes allows us to give a much more helpful and assertive
> > warning message:
> >
> > qcom,num-strings mis-matches and will partially override
> > qcom,enabled-strings (remove qcom,num-strings?)
>
> I want to let the user know it's set regardless of whether they're
> equivalent; no need to set both.
>
> How about:
>
> Only one of qcom,num-strings or qcom,enabled-strings should be set
>
> That should be more descriptive? Otherwise, let me know if you really
> want to allow users to (unnecessarily) set both - or if it can / should
> be caught in DT validation instead.
Yes. I can live with that text. Let's use that.
Maybe I wouldn't if there gazilions of existing DTs with both
properties but IIRC the number is likely to be small or zero
(although we couldn't be 100% sure which).
Daniel.
