On 22/05/2024 19:05, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 22/05/2024 18:42, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> Yes, the binding document was neglected pretty badly but when converting >>> to yaml it has to be correct since that will have ripple effect on >>> existing dts/dtsi files. >> >> Yep. And testing DTS should clearly show that conversion leads to >> incomplete binding. >> >>> >>>> I assume the DTS was validated with the binding. Isn't the case here? >> >> Mithil Bavishi, >> Are you sure you tested the DTS? > > Dear Daniel, Shuah, Julia, Javier and other mentorship managers, > > I see some contributions regarding Devicetree bindings which look like > efforts of some mentorship programs. It's great, I really like it. Only > sadness is that no one ever asked us, Devicetree maintainers, about some > sort of guidelines. This leads to sub-optimal allocation of tasks and > quite a strain on reviewers side: for example we receive contributions > which were never tested (tested as in make target - make > dt_binding_check). Or people converted bindings which really do not > matter thus their work soon will become obsolete. > > If there are still such active programs, please be sure that mentees > follow these guidelines: > > https://social.kernel.org/notice/Ai9hYRUKo8suzX3zNY > > 1. Please convert bindings which have active DTS users. First choose > bindings with DTS built by arm64 defconfig, then next choice by arm > multi_v7 defconfig. Then any other ARM or different architecture DTS. > > 2. Be sure dt_bindings_check (including yamllint) and checkpatch pass > without any warnings. See writing-schema.rst document. > > 3. Be sure DTS using these bindings passes dtbs_check validation. If > this means binding needs to be adapted during conversion, mention > briefly in the commit message changes done comparing to pure TXT->DT > schema conversion. > > Best regards, > Krzysztof > Hello Krzysztof, Several mentees from the Linux Kernel Mentorship Program have been converting bindings within the last weeks, but it was not a programmed task from the mentorship as such. They are free to choose the areas where they want to contribute, and some of them chose that one. Therefore no direct contact with the subsystem maintainers was established. We will keep an eye on that too, so we can anticipate such misunderstandings and additional work for the maintainers. Nonetheless, I saw that some our mentees sent such faulty/pointless conversions a few days ago, and they received some guidelines and links to the official documentation yesterday. All points you mentioned were covered, so the next patches should look better. Usually their patches are sent to the mentors first for a preliminary review, but sometimes that step gets "bypassed". We will insist on the preliminary review, at least for the first conversions. Apologies for any faulty patch they might still send directly/not taking those points into account. Thank you so much for your patience and feedback. Best regards, Javier Carrasco
