On 27/06/2024 07:25, Devi Priya wrote: > > > On 6/26/2024 10:56 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 09:35:20AM -0600, Rob Herring (Arm) wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, 26 Jun 2024 20:02:59 +0530, Devi Priya wrote: >>>> Add NSSCC clock and reset definitions for ipq9574. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Devi Priya <quic_devipriy@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> Changes in V5: >>>> - Dropped interconnects and added interconnect-cells to NSS >>>> clock provider so that it can be used as icc provider. >>>> >>>> .../bindings/clock/qcom,ipq9574-nsscc.yaml | 74 +++++++++ >>>> .../dt-bindings/clock/qcom,ipq9574-nsscc.h | 152 ++++++++++++++++++ >>>> .../dt-bindings/reset/qcom,ipq9574-nsscc.h | 134 +++++++++++++++ >>>> 3 files changed, 360 insertions(+) >>>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,ipq9574-nsscc.yaml >>>> create mode 100644 include/dt-bindings/clock/qcom,ipq9574-nsscc.h >>>> create mode 100644 include/dt-bindings/reset/qcom,ipq9574-nsscc.h >>>> >>> >>> My bot found errors running 'make dt_binding_check' on your patch: >>> >>> yamllint warnings/errors: >>> >>> dtschema/dtc warnings/errors: >>> Error: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,ipq9574-nsscc.example.dts:26.26-27 syntax error >>> FATAL ERROR: Unable to parse input tree >> >> Hi Devi >> >> Version 4 of these patches had the same exact problem. There was not >> an email explaining it is a false positive etc, so i have to assume it >> is a real error. So why has it not been fixed? >> >> Qualcomm patches are under a microscope at the moment because of how >> bad things went a couple of months ago with patches. You cannot ignore >> things like this, because the damage to Qualcomm reputation is going >> to make it impossible to get patches merged soon. >> > Hi Andrew, > Very sorry for the inconvenience. > I had run dt_binding_check locally on V4 patches and did not face any > errors. I somehow missed to notice the binding check error that was > reported on V4. Thus I went ahead and posted the same in V5. > Will ensure such things are not repeated henceforth. If the warning is expected, e.g. due to missing patches, it's beneficial to mention this in the changelog (---). Otherwise all maintainers my ignore your patch because you have issues reported by automation. Anyway, up to you. Best regards, Krzysztof
