[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f62c07d4-cda8-9873-8890-3411cd2f3b03@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2023 13:37:36 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: zhuyinbo <zhuyinbo@...ngson.cn>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
wanghongliang@...ngson.cn, Liu Peibao <liupeibao@...ngson.cn>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Jianmin Lv <lvjianmin@...ngson.cn>,
loongson-kernel@...ts.loongnix.cn, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-spi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] dt-bindings: spi: add loongson spi
On 29/03/2023 12:39, zhuyinbo wrote:
>
>
> 在 2023/3/28 下午8:57, Rob Herring 写道:
>>
>> On Tue, 28 Mar 2023 19:22:09 +0800, Yinbo Zhu wrote:
>>> Add the Loongson platform spi binding with DT schema format using
>>> json-schema.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Yinbo Zhu <zhuyinbo@...ngson.cn>
>>> ---
>>> .../bindings/spi/loongson,ls-spi.yaml | 43 +++++++++++++++++++
>>> MAINTAINERS | 6 +++
>>> 2 files changed, 49 insertions(+)
>>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/loongson,ls-spi.yaml
>>>
>>
>> My bot found errors running 'make DT_CHECKER_FLAGS=-m dt_binding_check'
>> on your patch (DT_CHECKER_FLAGS is new in v5.13):
>>
>> yamllint warnings/errors:
>>
>> dtschema/dtc warnings/errors:
>> Error: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/loongson,ls-spi.example.dts:22.28-29 syntax error
>> FATAL ERROR: Unable to parse input tree
>> make[1]: *** [scripts/Makefile.lib:419: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/loongson,ls-spi.example.dtb] Error 1
>> make[1]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
>> make: *** [Makefile:1512: dt_binding_check] Error 2
>>
>> doc reference errors (make refcheckdocs):
>>
>> See https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/devicetree-bindings/patch/20230328112210.23089-2-zhuyinbo@loongson.cn
>>
>> The base for the series is generally the latest rc1. A different dependency
>> should be noted in *this* patch.
> Hi Rob,
>
> I'm sorry, actually, I don't know what the specific operation I should
> do when I received the check warning
> from your bot. Does it means that I should add dependency note into this
> patch's changelog ?
Yes, this is explicitly mentioned in the sentence you quoted.
> or something else, I really
> don't know. Actually, I'm always bothered by these things that how to
> resolve the dependency issue for two
> dependent patches that do not belong to the same series.
Another approach, as Rob suggested last time, would be to just get rid
of the dependency and open-code the clock IDs...
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists