[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <eaa4a6e2d8539a0a772286f7f13ccc2c@trvn.ru>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2023 17:57:17 +0500
From: Nikita Travkin <nikita@...n.ru>
To: Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
~postmarketos/upstreaming@...ts.sr.ht,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.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
Lee Jones писал(а) 25.10.2023 17:21:
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2023, Nikita Travkin wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
> So is this good to go, or not?
IMO this patch should be good, it passes the check on today's linux-next
on my end.
The only concern might be that if someone runs dt_binding_check on
for-mfd-next, it would skip that file with an error since there is no
dependency yet.
If this is critical to you, I was going to respin this after the -rc1,
but if you can pick the schema now, I can respin the remainder earlier.
Nikita
Powered by blists - more mailing lists