On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 05:21:19PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 21/09/2022 16:38, Chris Morgan wrote: > >>> + compatible: > >>> + items: > >>> + - enum: > >>> + - anbernic,rg353p-panel > >> > >> Are these vendor prefixs documented? > > > > Yes, they are in another patch series referenced in the cover letter. > > They were added for the Anbernic devicetrees and should (I believe) > > land in 6.1. > > OK... you still need to test your bindings. Your patch was clearly not > tested before sending. :( I did: yamllint, make dt_binding_check (with DT_SCHEMA_FILES specified), and make dtbs_check (with DT_SCHEMA_FILES specified again). That's the proper testing flow correct? In this case it's the pre-requisite that's causing the issue as I see on a pristine master tree I'm warned about the missing vendor prefix for anbernic. Should I wait for that to go upstream before I submit this again? I'll make the other change about the space and the description of the vdd-supply when I resubmit. Are we good with the panel compatibles? I'm still not entirely sure the best thing to name them as I have no part number whatsoever except the driver IC. Thank you. > > Best regards, > Krzysztof >
