[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230712-unfasten-trespass-d57b3ff1f134@wendy>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2023 13:34:57 +0100
From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
CC: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
<soc@...nel.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<workflows@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation/process: maintainer-soc: document
dtbs_check requirement for Samsung
On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 01:46:20PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 12/07/2023 11:48, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 10:41:31AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> Samsung ARM/ARM64 SoCs (except legacy S5PV210) are also expected not to
> >> bring any new dtbs_check warnings. In fact this have been already
> >> enforced and tested since few release.
> >>
> >> Cc: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
> >>
> >> ---
> >
> >> Not sure where to document this. Creating new maintainer profile for
> >> Samsung SoC would be an overkill. OTOH, more SoCs might want to grow
> >> this list, so this also scales poor.
> >
> > To me, this portion of the document was "information to the
> > submaintainer", which would be you, not information to the contributors
> > to the platform. Adding the comment about Samsung SoC seems aimed at
> > contributors?
>
> Yes, I want to document it for contributors, so they won't be surprised.
> Any hints where to store it? I could put it in the "About" tab of my
> kernel.org repo, but no one checks this for contribution guidelines.
I've not got a better suggestion for where to put this, but under
something labelled as "Information for (new) Submaintainers" isn't
where I would be looking as a contributor.
Is adding to the generic DT documentation that dtbs_check should not add
any new warnings at W=1 too extreme?
writing-schema.rst has the instructions about how to run dtbs_check while
writing dt-binding patches, but we don't seem to have any docs about
running dtbs_check for dts/dtsi changes.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists