Hi David, Thanks for your feedback. On 2025-07-18 16:35:56 +1000, David Gibson wrote: > Right, that's more useful from the point of view of someone building > the kernel. But the underlying fact here is that the check is Just > Plain Wrong - it's giving a warning on a perfectly valid situation. > It should go. As Rob came to the same conclusion I posted a patch for that to dtc [1]. When two people more involved then me suggest the same thing, it's likely the better way forward ;-) 1. 20250708161547.149599-1-niklas.soderlund+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxx -- Kind Regards, Niklas Söderlund
