On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 10:45:09PM +0200, Ansuel Smith wrote: > On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 10:43:21PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > On 29/04/2022 17:57, Ansuel Smith wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 10:53:16AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > > >> On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 14:17:39 +0200, Ansuel Smith wrote: > > >>> Convert kpss-gcc driver Documentation to yaml. > > >>> > > >>> Signed-off-by: Ansuel Smith <ansuelsmth@xxxxxxxxx> > > >>> --- > > >>> .../bindings/arm/msm/qcom,kpss-gcc.txt | 44 ------------- > > >>> .../bindings/arm/msm/qcom,kpss-gcc.yaml | 63 +++++++++++++++++++ > > >>> 2 files changed, 63 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-) > > >>> delete mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/msm/qcom,kpss-gcc.txt > > >>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/msm/qcom,kpss-gcc.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: > > >> /builds/robherring/linux-dt-review/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/msm/qcom,kpss-gcc.yaml: properties: '#clock-cells' is a dependency of 'clock-output-names' > > > > > > > The patches were previously sent (even as v6) and somehow the history, > > changelog and references disappeared... > > > > Mhh with split how this should be handled? Putting the relevant changes > in the cover letter? > > > > Erm how to fix this? I can't do a 1:1 conversion if the source was > > > wrong and also have no bot warning. > > > Or I should just push an additional patch to fix this error after the > > > conversion? > > > > Didn't we agree that original bindings were not in good shape? Yet the > > questions raised with your v6 remain actually not answered, till the bot > > complains. > > > > Please do not send the bindings which do not pass dt_binding_check. > > > > Best regards, > > Krzysztof > > In v6 the last mail were with the idea of sending separate series with > minimal changes and it was mention that it was a good idea to send only > conversion and then send the changes with the conversion series. > > Finally got the message. I should NEVER send patch with warning from > dt_binding_check. It's like sending code changes that don't compile... But I wouldn't say NEVER. If you have a warning that you think is wrong or don't know how to fix, then send it and say that in the patch. Rob
