On 9/28/22 15:56, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 03:06:34PM +0200, Sebastian Reichel wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 01:48:29PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: >>> On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 04:16:01PM +0200, Sebastian Reichel wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 11:12:02AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: >>>>> Hello Rob, >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 02:14:55PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 01 Sep 2022 15:55:23 +0200, Sebastian Reichel wrote: >>>>>>> Add "rockchip,rk3588-pwm" compatible string for PWM nodes found >>>>>>> on a rk3588 platform. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Reichel <sebastian.reichel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> No driver changes required. >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-rockchip.yaml | 1 + >>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Running 'make dtbs_check' with the schema in this patch gives the >>>>>> following warnings. Consider if they are expected or the schema is >>>>>> incorrect. These may not be new warnings. >>>>>> >>>>>> Note that it is not yet a requirement to have 0 warnings for dtbs_check. >>>>>> This will change in the future. >>>>> >>>>> Is this a list of *new* warnings, or is the report (somewhat) orthogonal >>>>> to the actual change and you just used the opportunity that someone >>>>> touched the pwm-rockchip binding to point out that there is some cleanup >>>>> to do? >>>>> >>>>>> Full log is available here: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/ >>>>> >>>>> Hm, that gives me a 404. >>>> >>>> This is an existing problem with the rv1108 binding. >>>> The rk3588 does not have pwm interrupts. >>> I can provide DT and YAML changes, but I pass for changes to the currently to me unknown PWM framework and missing hardware. Johan >> >> I assume this will be taken care of with the rk3128 patchset, since >> that is affected anyways: >> >> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pwm/f5dd0ee4-d97e-d878-ffde-c06e9b233e38@xxxxxxxxx/ > > That patch is already acked and I've pulled it in, so better make it a > separate patch. > > The point I was trying to make is that somebody needs to fix this, > otherwise the automated checks are not going to be useful. So saying > things like "this is an existing problem and the new compatible is not > affected" is not helpful. > > Thierry > > > _______________________________________________ > Linux-rockchip mailing list > Linux-rockchip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip
