[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3af25437-9329-4d2a-9558-f04cb4855e16@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2023 16:48:08 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Ceclan Dumitru <mitrutzceclan@...il.com>
Cc: linus.walleij@...aro.org, brgl@...ev.pl, andy@...nel.org,
linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
ChiaEn Wu <chiaen_wu@...htek.com>,
Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@...ux.ibm.com>,
Leonard Göhrs <l.goehrs@...gutronix.de>,
Mike Looijmans <mike.looijmans@...ic.nl>,
Haibo Chen <haibo.chen@....com>,
Hugo Villeneuve <hvilleneuve@...onoff.com>,
Ceclan Dumitru <dumitru.ceclan@...log.com>,
linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] dt-bindings: adc: add AD7173
On 23/11/2023 16:11, Ceclan Dumitru wrote:
>
>
> On 11/23/23 16:26, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 23/11/2023 15:02, mitrutzceclan wrote:
>>> + Bindings for the Analog Devices AD717X ADC's. Datasheets for supported chips:
>>
>> Drop "Bindings for" and instead describe hardware.
>>
>
> Okay
>
> ...
>
>>> + avdd-supply:
>>> + description: avdd supply, can be used as reference for conversion.
>>> +
>>> + required:
>>
>> Please test your code before sending. You ignored my comment. This has
>> both wrong indentation and wrong placement - should be after all
>> properties and patternProperties.
>>
>> Do not ignore comments but respond to them.
>>
>
> There were no errors while testing the yaml binding (with
> DT_CHECKER_FLAGS=-m dt_binding_check - to make sure that this is how
> bindings should be tested). Indeed I did not test the yaml if the
> required properties are missing from the example. What is indicative in
> this patch that it was not tested?
Then your testing method might miss something, because as you can see -
Rob's bot found the issue.
>
> I did not ignore your comment. I did not have questions about it. I
> missed the indentation. Sorry about that.
>
> But about the placement of 'required': the example-schema does not have
> the exact case of pattern properties. Also, there are multiple iio/adc
> (ad4130, ad7124, ad7292) bindings that place required before
> patternProperties. I assumed that this placement is correct.
>
> Will move it in next version.
>
> In regards to responding to comments: if there are no questions about a
> comment and will fix in next version, should there be a response anyway
> just confirming it?
The point is that code did not change here and there was no
Ack/Done/something reply.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists