Using of_property_read_bool() for non-boolean properties is deprecated
and results in a warning during runtime since commit c141ecc3cecd ("of:
Warn when of_property_read_bool() is used on non-boolean properties").

Fixes: b6ef830c60b6 ("i2c: omap: Add support for setting mux")
Cc: Jayesh Choudhary <j-choudhary@ti.com>
Signed-off-by: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@kernel.org>
---
 drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-omap.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-omap.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-omap.c
index 16afb9ca19bb..876791d20ed5 100644
--- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-omap.c
+++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-omap.c
@@ -1454,7 +1454,7 @@ omap_i2c_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 				       (1000 * omap->speed / 8);
 	}
 
-	if (of_property_read_bool(node, "mux-states")) {
+	if (of_property_present(node, "mux-states")) {
 		struct mux_state *mux_state;
 
 		mux_state = devm_mux_state_get(&pdev->dev, NULL);
-- 
2.49.0

Hi Johan,

On Tue, Apr 15, 2025 at 09:52:30AM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> Using of_property_read_bool() for non-boolean properties is deprecated
> and results in a warning during runtime since commit c141ecc3cecd ("of:
> Warn when of_property_read_bool() is used on non-boolean properties").
> 
> Fixes: b6ef830c60b6 ("i2c: omap: Add support for setting mux")
> Cc: Jayesh Choudhary <j-choudhary@ti.com>
> Signed-off-by: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@kernel.org>

Thanks for your patch! I'm going to drop the Fixes tag, as this
isn't really a bug fix but rather a warning suppression during
boot time.

Thanks,
Andi

On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 11:41:51PM +0200, Andi Shyti wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2025 at 09:52:30AM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > Using of_property_read_bool() for non-boolean properties is deprecated
> > and results in a warning during runtime since commit c141ecc3cecd ("of:
> > Warn when of_property_read_bool() is used on non-boolean properties").
> > 
> > Fixes: b6ef830c60b6 ("i2c: omap: Add support for setting mux")
> > Cc: Jayesh Choudhary <j-choudhary@ti.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@kernel.org>
> 
> Thanks for your patch! I'm going to drop the Fixes tag, as this
> isn't really a bug fix but rather a warning suppression during
> boot time.

Thanks, but I think you should have kept the Fixes tag and merged this
for 6.15 (i2c-host-fixes) since this is a new warning in 6.15-rc1 (and
that does warrant a Fixes tag). Perhaps I should have highlighted that
better.

If the offending patch had been posted or merged before such uses
started generating warnings in 6.14-rc1 then that would have been a
different matter.

Johan

Hi Johan,

On Fri, Apr 18, 2025 at 11:57:57AM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 11:41:51PM +0200, Andi Shyti wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 15, 2025 at 09:52:30AM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > > Using of_property_read_bool() for non-boolean properties is deprecated
> > > and results in a warning during runtime since commit c141ecc3cecd ("of:
> > > Warn when of_property_read_bool() is used on non-boolean properties").
> > > 
> > > Fixes: b6ef830c60b6 ("i2c: omap: Add support for setting mux")
> > > Cc: Jayesh Choudhary <j-choudhary@ti.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@kernel.org>
> > 
> > Thanks for your patch! I'm going to drop the Fixes tag, as this
> > isn't really a bug fix but rather a warning suppression during
> > boot time.
> 
> Thanks, but I think you should have kept the Fixes tag and merged this
> for 6.15 (i2c-host-fixes) since this is a new warning in 6.15-rc1 (and
> that does warrant a Fixes tag). Perhaps I should have highlighted that
> better.
> 
> If the offending patch had been posted or merged before such uses
> started generating warnings in 6.14-rc1 then that would have been a
> different matter.

I'm sorry, but as I understand it, the Fixes tag should be used
only when an actual bug is being fixed. I've seen stable
maintainers getting annoyed when it's used for non-bug issues.

The system works perfectly fine even with the warning printed.
It might confuse CI systems, but that shouldn't really be our
concern.

In any case, I see your point and I'm open to hearing a third
opinion.

Thanks,
Andi

On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 03:10:13PM +0200, Andi Shyti wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2025 at 11:57:57AM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 11:41:51PM +0200, Andi Shyti wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 15, 2025 at 09:52:30AM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > > > Using of_property_read_bool() for non-boolean properties is deprecated
> > > > and results in a warning during runtime since commit c141ecc3cecd ("of:
> > > > Warn when of_property_read_bool() is used on non-boolean properties").
> > > > 
> > > > Fixes: b6ef830c60b6 ("i2c: omap: Add support for setting mux")
> > > > Cc: Jayesh Choudhary <j-choudhary@ti.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@kernel.org>
> > > 
> > > Thanks for your patch! I'm going to drop the Fixes tag, as this
> > > isn't really a bug fix but rather a warning suppression during
> > > boot time.
> > 
> > Thanks, but I think you should have kept the Fixes tag and merged this
> > for 6.15 (i2c-host-fixes) since this is a new warning in 6.15-rc1 (and
> > that does warrant a Fixes tag). Perhaps I should have highlighted that
> > better.
> > 
> > If the offending patch had been posted or merged before such uses
> > started generating warnings in 6.14-rc1 then that would have been a
> > different matter.
> 
> I'm sorry, but as I understand it, the Fixes tag should be used
> only when an actual bug is being fixed. I've seen stable
> maintainers getting annoyed when it's used for non-bug issues.

You seem to confuse the Fixes tag with a CC stable tag. A Fixes tag is
used to indicate which commit introduced an issue, while the CC stable
tag is used to flag a commit for backporting (and the fact that autosel
tends to pick up patches with just a Fixes doesn't change this).

It's perfectly fine to fix an issue and use a Fixes tag when doing so
even if the fix itself does not qualify for backporting (for whatever
reason).

> The system works perfectly fine even with the warning printed.
> It might confuse CI systems, but that shouldn't really be our
> concern.

You should not knowingly be introducing new warnings. The Fixes tag I
added showed that this was an issue introduced in 6.15-rc1, and, unless
discovered really late in the cycle, it should be fixed before 6.15 is
out.

Johan

Hi Johan,

On Mon, May 05, 2025 at 12:00:07PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 03:10:13PM +0200, Andi Shyti wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 18, 2025 at 11:57:57AM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 11:41:51PM +0200, Andi Shyti wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Apr 15, 2025 at 09:52:30AM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > > > > Using of_property_read_bool() for non-boolean properties is deprecated
> > > > > and results in a warning during runtime since commit c141ecc3cecd ("of:
> > > > > Warn when of_property_read_bool() is used on non-boolean properties").
> > > > > 
> > > > > Fixes: b6ef830c60b6 ("i2c: omap: Add support for setting mux")
> > > > > Cc: Jayesh Choudhary <j-choudhary@ti.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@kernel.org>
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks for your patch! I'm going to drop the Fixes tag, as this
> > > > isn't really a bug fix but rather a warning suppression during
> > > > boot time.
> > > 
> > > Thanks, but I think you should have kept the Fixes tag and merged this
> > > for 6.15 (i2c-host-fixes) since this is a new warning in 6.15-rc1 (and
> > > that does warrant a Fixes tag). Perhaps I should have highlighted that
> > > better.
> > > 
> > > If the offending patch had been posted or merged before such uses
> > > started generating warnings in 6.14-rc1 then that would have been a
> > > different matter.
> > 
> > I'm sorry, but as I understand it, the Fixes tag should be used
> > only when an actual bug is being fixed. I've seen stable
> > maintainers getting annoyed when it's used for non-bug issues.
> 
> You seem to confuse the Fixes tag with a CC stable tag. A Fixes tag is
> used to indicate which commit introduced an issue, while the CC stable
> tag is used to flag a commit for backporting (and the fact that autosel
> tends to pick up patches with just a Fixes doesn't change this).

(the Cc tag for fixes is not mandatory, it's more a courtesy)

> It's perfectly fine to fix an issue and use a Fixes tag when doing so
> even if the fix itself does not qualify for backporting (for whatever
> reason).

Oh yes, I forgot that patch was part of the 6.15 merge window. I
will then move it to the -fixes and send it for this week's merge
request.

Thanks and sorry for the confusion,
Andi

> > The system works perfectly fine even with the warning printed.
> > It might confuse CI systems, but that shouldn't really be our
> > concern.
> 
> You should not knowingly be introducing new warnings. The Fixes tag I
> added showed that this was an issue introduced in 6.15-rc1, and, unless
> discovered really late in the cycle, it should be fixed before 6.15 is
> out.
> 
> Johan

On Tue, May 06, 2025 at 12:13:00AM +0200, Andi Shyti wrote:
> On Mon, May 05, 2025 at 12:00:07PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 03:10:13PM +0200, Andi Shyti wrote:

> > > I'm sorry, but as I understand it, the Fixes tag should be used
> > > only when an actual bug is being fixed. I've seen stable
> > > maintainers getting annoyed when it's used for non-bug issues.
> > 
> > You seem to confuse the Fixes tag with a CC stable tag. A Fixes tag is
> > used to indicate which commit introduced an issue, while the CC stable
> > tag is used to flag a commit for backporting (and the fact that autosel
> > tends to pick up patches with just a Fixes doesn't change this).
> 
> (the Cc tag for fixes is not mandatory, it's more a courtesy)

You should still add it as described by the stable tree docs:

	To have a patch you submit for mainline inclusion later
	automatically picked up for stable trees, add this tag in the
	sign-off area::

	Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org

The stable team also scans through patches with just a Fixes tag because
some people forget to add the tag, don't know that they should, or don't
care about stable, but you should not rely on that (as I alluded to
above).

> > It's perfectly fine to fix an issue and use a Fixes tag when doing so
> > even if the fix itself does not qualify for backporting (for whatever
> > reason).
> 
> Oh yes, I forgot that patch was part of the 6.15 merge window. I
> will then move it to the -fixes and send it for this week's merge
> request.

Perfect, thanks.

Johan

Am Tue, 29 Apr 2025 15:10:13 +0200
schrieb Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@kernel.org>:

> Hi Johan,
> 
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2025 at 11:57:57AM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 11:41:51PM +0200, Andi Shyti wrote:  
> > > On Tue, Apr 15, 2025 at 09:52:30AM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:  
> > > > Using of_property_read_bool() for non-boolean properties is deprecated
> > > > and results in a warning during runtime since commit c141ecc3cecd ("of:
> > > > Warn when of_property_read_bool() is used on non-boolean properties").
> > > > 
> > > > Fixes: b6ef830c60b6 ("i2c: omap: Add support for setting mux")
> > > > Cc: Jayesh Choudhary <j-choudhary@ti.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@kernel.org>  
> > > 
> > > Thanks for your patch! I'm going to drop the Fixes tag, as this
> > > isn't really a bug fix but rather a warning suppression during
> > > boot time.  
> > 
> > Thanks, but I think you should have kept the Fixes tag and merged this
> > for 6.15 (i2c-host-fixes) since this is a new warning in 6.15-rc1 (and
> > that does warrant a Fixes tag). Perhaps I should have highlighted that
> > better.
> > 
> > If the offending patch had been posted or merged before such uses
> > started generating warnings in 6.14-rc1 then that would have been a
> > different matter.  
> 
> I'm sorry, but as I understand it, the Fixes tag should be used
> only when an actual bug is being fixed. I've seen stable
> maintainers getting annoyed when it's used for non-bug issues.
> 
hmm, some issue new in -rc1 could be fixed in a later -rcX. I have seen
a lot of typos and other minor stuff getting fixed that way. So
it does not need to be backported to any stable/longterm tree at all.
Are the rules for that really that tough as for stable trees? I really
doubt.

Regards,
Andreas

On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 11:41:51PM +0200, Andi Shyti wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2025 at 09:52:30AM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > Using of_property_read_bool() for non-boolean properties is deprecated
> > and results in a warning during runtime since commit c141ecc3cecd ("of:
> > Warn when of_property_read_bool() is used on non-boolean properties").
> > 
> > Fixes: b6ef830c60b6 ("i2c: omap: Add support for setting mux")
> > Cc: Jayesh Choudhary <j-choudhary@ti.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@kernel.org>
> 
> Thanks for your patch! I'm going to drop the Fixes tag, as this
> isn't really a bug fix but rather a warning suppression during
> boot time.

forgot to say that I merged the patch in i2c/i2c-host.

Thanks,
Andi

On 4/15/2025 1:22 PM, Johan Hovold wrote:
> Using of_property_read_bool() for non-boolean properties is deprecated
> and results in a warning during runtime since commit c141ecc3cecd ("of:
> Warn when of_property_read_bool() is used on non-boolean properties").
> 
> Fixes: b6ef830c60b6 ("i2c: omap: Add support for setting mux")
> Cc: Jayesh Choudhary <j-choudhary@ti.com>
> Signed-off-by: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@kernel.org>
> ---
>   drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-omap.c | 2 +-
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-omap.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-omap.c
> index 16afb9ca19bb..876791d20ed5 100644
> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-omap.c
> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-omap.c
> @@ -1454,7 +1454,7 @@ omap_i2c_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>   				       (1000 * omap->speed / 8);
>   	}
>   
> -	if (of_property_read_bool(node, "mux-states")) {
> +	if (of_property_present(node, "mux-states")) {
>   		struct mux_state *mux_state;
>   
>   		mux_state = devm_mux_state_get(&pdev->dev, NULL);
Acked-by: Mukesh Kumar Savaliya <quic_msavaliy@quicinc.com>