On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 05:57:55PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 21/09/2022 17:50, Chris Morgan wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 05:21:19PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >> On 21/09/2022 16:38, Chris Morgan wrote: > >>>>> + compatible: > >>>>> + items: > >>>>> + - enum: > >>>>> + - anbernic,rg353p-panel > >>>> > >>>> Are these vendor prefixs documented? > >>> > >>> Yes, they are in another patch series referenced in the cover letter. > >>> They were added for the Anbernic devicetrees and should (I believe) > >>> land in 6.1. > >> > >> OK... you still need to test your bindings. Your patch was clearly not > >> tested before sending. :( > > > > I did: yamllint, make dt_binding_check (with DT_SCHEMA_FILES specified), and > > make dtbs_check (with DT_SCHEMA_FILES specified again). > > I have doubts. So if you say you did it, then you probably did not look > at the results... or whatever other reason the test was not effective, > because your binding cannot pass the dt_binding_check. > > > That's the proper > > testing flow correct? In this case it's the pre-requisite that's causing > > the issue as I see on a pristine master tree I'm warned about the missing > > vendor prefix for anbernic. Should I wait for that to go upstream before > > I submit this again? > > Not really. The testing fails on wrong compatible in example. My mistake, I see what I did wrong and apologize for the trouble. I misinterpreted the error I did get (I expected an issue with a missing vendor string, but as you correctly point out the received error is not for that). I'll correct and resend. Would you be so kind as to confirm if you're okay with the "anbernic,rg353-panel", "newvision,nv3051d" strings? Thank you once again and I apologize for my mistake. > > Best regards, > Krzysztof >
