linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: regulator: Convert ti,tps65133 to YAML

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2023 15:17:24 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, André Apitzsch
 <git@...tzsch.eu>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc: devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
 Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: regulator: Convert ti,tps65133 to YAML

On 22/12/2023 15:49, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 08:50:14AM +0100, André Apitzsch wrote:
>> Am Sonntag, dem 17.12.2023 um 08:24 -0600 schrieb Rob Herring:
>>> On Sun, 17 Dec 2023 14:21:39 +0100, André Apitzsch wrote:
> 
>>> dtschema/dtc warnings/errors:
>>> /builds/robherring/dt-review-
>>> ci/linux/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/ti,tps65132.yaml
>>> : 'maintainers' is a required property
>>> 	hint: Metaschema for devicetree binding documentation
>>> 	from schema $id:
>>> http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/base.yaml#
> 
>> I haven't add a maintainer, yet, as the driver for tps65132 doesn't
>> list one.
> 
>> Who is willing to be listed as maintainer for this device or who can be
>> asked to become a maintainer for tps65132?
> 
> You could just put the list in as a fallback I guess?
> 
> The requirement for DT maintainer does seem to in conflict with the push
> to convert things when people are doing incidental work on the driver...

I agree. How about relaxing the check and not marking missing maintainer
as a failure?

Best regards,
Krzysztof