On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 5:39 PM Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 06:32:27AM -0800, Shiping Ji wrote: > > This is the device tree bindings for new EDAC driver dmc520_edac.c. > > > > Signed-off-by: Shiping Ji <shiping.linux@xxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Lei Wang <leiwang_git@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: James Morse <james.morse@xxxxxxx> > > So for this patch, v2 had Rui Zhao as an author: > > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/BN7PR08MB5572B3388B2D7DC8F6C7F285AE4C0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > v3 got Lei as an author: > > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CY1PR0401MB1244062C1738B09D6100F202860A0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > and now it is you. > > So when you send next time, think about who's going to be the author. > > > + line numbers. The valid interrupt names are the followings: > > WARNING: 'followings' may be misspelled - perhaps 'following'? > #51: FILE: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/edac/arm-dmc520.txt:10: > + line numbers. The valid interrupt names are the followings: > > Please integrate scripts/checkpatch.pl into your patch creation > workflow. Some of the warnings/errors *actually* make sense. > > Also, this patch throws this other checkpatch warning: > > WARNING: DT bindings should be in DT schema format. See: Documentation/devicetree/writing-schema.rst > > but since Rob reviewed it, I'm going to assume checkpatch is wrong here. Would be happy for a schema, but not going to ask for that on a v9. Rob
