linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] iio: pressure: adp810: Add driver for adp810 sensor

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]

Message-ID: <c45309cf-bd2c-41fe-b893-7e0a91de84a8@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2025 08:18:21 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
 Akhilesh Patil <akhilesh@...iitb.ac.in>, jic23@...nel.org,
 dlechner@...libre.com, robh@...nel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org,
 conor+dt@...nel.org, nuno.sa@...log.com, andy@...nel.org,
 marcelo.schmitt1@...il.com, vassilisamir@...il.com, salah.triki@...il.com,
 skhan@...uxfoundation.org, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 akhileshpatilvnit@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] iio: pressure: adp810: Add driver for adp810 sensor

On 23/10/2025 20:51, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 12, 2025 at 05:12:26AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 11/10/2025 16:10, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Sat, Oct 11, 2025 at 3:25 PM Akhilesh Patil <akhilesh@...iitb.ac.in> wrote:
>>>> +AOSONG ADP810 DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE SENSOR DRIVER
>>>> +M:     Akhilesh Patil <akhilesh@...iitb.ac.in>
>>>> +L:     linux-iio@...r.kernel.org
>>>> +S:     Maintained
>>>> +F:     Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/pressure/aosong,adp810.yaml
>>>> +F:     drivers/iio/pressure/adp810.c
>>>
>>> Some tools will report an orphaned yaml file if you apply patch 1
>>> without patch 2.
>>
>> You mean checkpatch? That warning is not really relevant. Adding
>> maintainers entry here for both files is perfectly fine and correct.
> 
> It's relevant as long as I see (false positive) warnings from it. Can somebody


No, it is not relevant. Just because tool is inefficient does not allow
you to point such nitpicks. You as reviewer are supposed to find
difference which checkpatch warnings are important and which are not and
DO NOT bother contributors with useless points that there is some
orphaned file according to checkpatch.


> shut the checkpatch up about missing DT files in the MAINTAINERS?

That would be great but, if no one does it your comments on "orphaned
file" are counter productive.

Best regards,
Krzysztof