On 22/02/2024 04:41, Saravana Kannan wrote: > On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 4:23 PM Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 15:30:23 -0800, Saravana Kannan wrote: >>> The post-init-providers property can be used to break a dependency cycle by >>> marking some provider(s) as a post device initialization provider(s). This >>> allows an OS to do a better job at ordering initialization and >>> suspend/resume of the devices in a dependency cycle. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> .../bindings/post-init-providers.yaml | 105 ++++++++++++++++++ >>> MAINTAINERS | 13 ++- >>> 2 files changed, 112 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/post-init-providers.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: >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/post-init-providers.example.dtb: /example-0/clock-controller@1000: failed to match any schema with compatible: ['vendor,soc4-gcc', 'vendor,soc1-gcc'] >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/post-init-providers.example.dtb: /example-0/clock-controller@1000: failed to match any schema with compatible: ['vendor,soc4-gcc', 'vendor,soc1-gcc'] >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/post-init-providers.example.dtb: /example-0/clock-controller@2000: failed to match any schema with compatible: ['vendor,soc4-dispcc', 'vendor,soc1-dispcc'] >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/post-init-providers.example.dtb: /example-0/clock-controller@2000: failed to match any schema with compatible: ['vendor,soc4-dispcc', 'vendor,soc1-dispcc'] > > I'm assuming it's okay to ignore these warnings about made up > compatible string names. No, unfortunately not. I think you need to come with a real example or just drop compatibles. BTW, I still don't see any users of this binding. Best regards, Krzysztof
