On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 04:57:40PM +0100, Ansuel Smith wrote: > On Sun, Feb 20, 2022 at 08:36:09PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 18:39:04 +0100, Ansuel Smith wrote: > > > Document new partition-dynamic nodes used to provide an OF node for > > > partition registred at runtime by parsers. This is required for nvmem > > > system to declare and detect nvmem-cells. > > > > > > With these special partitions, only the label is required as the parser > > > will provide reg and offset of the mtd. NVMEM will use the data from the > > > parser and provide the NVMEM cells declared in the DTS, "connecting" the > > > dynamic partition with a static declaration of cells in them. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ansuel Smith <ansuelsmth@xxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > .../mtd/partitions/partition-dynamic.yaml | 54 +++++++++++++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 54 insertions(+) > > > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/partition-dynamic.yaml > > > > > > > My bot found errors running 'make DT_CHECKER_FLAGS=-m dt_binding_check' > > on your patch (DT_CHECKER_FLAGS is new in v5.13): > > > > yamllint warnings/errors: > > > > dtschema/dtc warnings/errors: > > /builds/robherring/linux-dt-review/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/partition-dynamic.example.dt.yaml: partitions: '#address-cells', '#size-cells', 'art' do not match any of the regexes: 'pinctrl-[0-9]+' > > From schema: /builds/robherring/linux-dt-review/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/qcom,smem-part.yaml > > > > doc reference errors (make refcheckdocs): > > > > See https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1595230 > > > > This check can fail if there are any dependencies. The base for a patch > > series is generally the most recent rc1. > > > > If you already ran 'make dt_binding_check' and didn't see the above > > error(s), then make sure 'yamllint' is installed and dt-schema is up to > > date: > > > > pip3 install dtschema --upgrade > > > > Please check and re-submit. > > > > Considering the idea of this partition-dynamic, should these warning be > ignored or the smem-part should include the ref of these new partitions? We can't have warnings. > Or should I remove the example? Doesn't that just kick the problem to actual users? > (or should I add the example to smem-part instead of partition-dynamic) That shouldn't matter I think... Rob
