On Tue, 24 Oct 2023, Nikita Travkin wrote: > Rob Herring писал(а) 23.10.2023 22:40: > > On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 11:20:32 +0500, Nikita Travkin wrote: > >> PM8916 (and probably some other similar pmics) have hardware blocks for > >> battery monitoring and charging. Add patterns for respecive nodes so the > >> devicetree for those blocks can be validated properly. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Nikita Travkin <nikita@xxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom,spmi-pmic.yaml | 6 ++++++ > >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) > >> > > > > 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/dt-review-ci/linux/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom,spmi-pmic.yaml: > > Error in referenced schema matching $id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/power/supply/qcom,pm8916-bms-vm.yaml > > > > doc reference errors (make refcheckdocs): > > > > See https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/devicetree-bindings/patch/20231023-pm8916-dtsi-bms-lbc-v2-1-343e3dbf423e@xxxxxxx > > > > The base for the series is generally the latest rc1. A different dependency > > should be noted in *this* patch. > > > > Somehow I missed the memo and thought it tracks -next... > > This patch depends on 7f590e3831 and 5cee843d56 in linux-next.git > They were applied in [1]. > > I'm wondering if the bot just bails out when the "depend" is present > or there is some more sophisticated logic to suggest the base to it? So is this good to go, or not? -- Lee Jones [李琼斯]
