On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 07:48:22PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > Devicetree bindings patches go usually via driver subsystem tree, so > obviously testing only SoC branches would result in new dtbs_check > warnings. Mention that linux-next branch is decisice for zero-warnings > rule. > > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > Documentation/process/maintainer-soc-clean-dts.rst | 5 +++-- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/maintainer-soc-clean-dts.rst b/Documentation/process/maintainer-soc-clean-dts.rst > index 1b32430d0cfc..5423fb7d6047 100644 > --- a/Documentation/process/maintainer-soc-clean-dts.rst > +++ b/Documentation/process/maintainer-soc-clean-dts.rst > @@ -17,8 +17,9 @@ Strict DTS DT Schema and dtc Compliance > No changes to the SoC platform Devicetree sources (DTS files) should introduce > new ``make dtbs_check W=1`` warnings. Warnings in a new board DTS, which are > results of issues in an included DTSI file, are considered existing, not new > -warnings. The platform maintainers have automation in place which should point > -out any new warnings. > +warnings. For series split between different trees (DT bindings go via driver > +subsystem tree), warnings on linux-next are decisive. The platform maintainers > +have automation in place which should point out any new warnings. I see a lot of warnings due to dependencies (both bindings and other dts changes) not be applied yet (or applied but not in linux-next). I've been filtering those out, but maybe they're useful? Some are things like missing labels, so dtc fails. I think that gets run enough a failure report on it isn't too useful. Rob
