[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53474576e3c860a1bb93f811cfe3964a@trvn.ru>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2023 10:08:56 +0500
From: Nikita Travkin <nikita@...n.ru>
To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc: ~postmarketos/upstreaming@...ts.sr.ht,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] dt-bindings: mfd: qcom,spmi-pmic: Add pm8916
vm-bms and lbc
Rob Herring писал(а) 23.10.2023 22:40:
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 11:20:32 +0500, Nikita Travkin wrote:
>> PM8916 (and probably some other similar pmics) have hardware blocks for
>> battery monitoring and charging. Add patterns for respecive nodes so the
>> devicetree for those blocks can be validated properly.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Nikita Travkin <nikita@...n.ru>
>> ---
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom,spmi-pmic.yaml | 6 ++++++
>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>
>
> 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:
> /builds/robherring/dt-review-ci/linux/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom,spmi-pmic.yaml:
> Error in referenced schema matching $id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/power/supply/qcom,pm8916-bms-vm.yaml
>
> doc reference errors (make refcheckdocs):
>
> See https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/devicetree-bindings/patch/20231023-pm8916-dtsi-bms-lbc-v2-1-343e3dbf423e@trvn.ru
>
> The base for the series is generally the latest rc1. A different dependency
> should be noted in *this* patch.
>
Somehow I missed the memo and thought it tracks -next...
This patch depends on 7f590e3831 and 5cee843d56 in linux-next.git
They were applied in [1].
I'm wondering if the bot just bails out when the "depend" is present
or there is some more sophisticated logic to suggest the base to it?
Sorry for the inconvenience
Nikita
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230915-pm8916-bms-lbc-v3-0-f30881e951a0@trvn.ru/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists