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: <aPs6HAJabFMRzX9Y@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2025 11:34:36 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
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 Fri, Oct 24, 2025 at 08:18:21AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> 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.

Something like this?

diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
index 6729f18e5654..818b49d314ce 100755
--- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
+++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
@@ -3441,11 +3441,17 @@ sub process {
 		     ($line =~ /\{\s*([\w\/\.\-]*)\s*\=\>\s*([\w\/\.\-]*)\s*\}/ &&
 		      (defined($1) || defined($2))))) {
 			$is_patch = 1;
-			$reported_maintainer_file = 1;
-			WARN("FILE_PATH_CHANGES",
-			     "added, moved or deleted file(s), does MAINTAINERS need updating?\n" . $herecurr);
+			# DT bindings are incorporate maintainer information, no need to report
+			if ($realfile !~ m@...cumentation/devicetree/bindings/@)) {
+				$reported_maintainer_file = 1;
+				WARN("FILE_PATH_CHANGES",
+				     "added, moved or deleted file(s), does MAINTAINERS need updating?\n" . $herecurr);
+			}
 		}
 
+		    ($realfile =~ m@...cumentation/devicetree/bindings/.*\.txt$@)) {
+			if ($realfile =~ m@...clude/asm/@) {
+
 # Check for adding new DT bindings not in schema format
 		if (!$in_commit_log &&
 		    ($line =~ /^new file mode\s*\d+\s*$/) &&

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko