On 02/02/2023 06:28, Ki-Seok Jo wrote: >>>> I tried. I started writing patch to fix few things in this binding >>>> and then noticed that it is entirely empty and documents nothing. >>> >>> I really don't see an empty binding as a major problem in and of >>> itself, we can always add properties later. Again, I can't tell what >>> the problems you're seeing are. >>> >>>> The trouble is that soon you will send it to Linus and then it >>>> becomes the ABI even though no one ever approved or reviewed the >> actual ABI. >>> >>> So send a patch to delete the property parsing code then, like I say >>> removing the entire driver is very much an overraction. The >>> properties are all optional in the code. >> >> Ok. I'm sorry for not checking correctly. >> I only reviewed using the full source build and checkpatch.pl. >> But I missed the config setting... >> >> So, could I get the information how to test the binding files? >> From what I've checked now, using make dt_binding_check, right? >> >> I'll try to read again like submitting-patches.rst and writing- >> bindings.rst. >> And then re-write the patch. I'm sorry again for not checking properly. >> >> >> Thanks Mark and Krzysztof to feedback. >> >> Best Regards, >> Kiseok Jo > > So, was the entire thing dropped, or was only the binding dropped? > If they are not also, can I just patch in the current state? > > And I tested the rewritten file with the following command. > > make dt_binding_check DT_SCHEMA_FILES=irondevice,sma1303.yaml Yes. > > Is there anything else I should do? Correct the binding: 1. Add all properties - just open example-schema and your file and document everything 2. Fix non-existing reference (there is no such file as name-prefix.yaml) 3. i2c_bus -> i2c > > Thanks to your help, I think I am becoming a better developer. > I'll try harder. Thanks so much! > > Best regards, > Kiseok Jo Best regards, Krzysztof
