Hi Rob,
On Fri Jun 23, 2023 at 11:17 PM CEST, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 02:38:04PM +0200, Luca Weiss wrote:
> > On Fri Jun 23, 2023 at 2:31 PM CEST, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > On 23/06/2023 13:30, Abel Vesa wrote:
> > > > There is a warning on dtbs check for sdm845, amongst other platforms,
> > > > about the reg-names being unevaluated. Fix that by adding reg-names to
> > > > the clocks and reg properties check for such platforms.
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: 462c5c0aa798 ("dt-bindings: ufs: qcom,ufs: convert to dtschema")
> > > > Signed-off-by: Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/qcom,ufs.yaml | 4 ++++
> > > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/qcom,ufs.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/qcom,ufs.yaml
> > > > index 0209713d1f88..894b57117314 100644
> > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/qcom,ufs.yaml
> > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/qcom,ufs.yaml
> > > > @@ -166,6 +166,10 @@ allOf:
> > > > reg:
> > > > minItems: 2
> > > > maxItems: 2
> > > > + reg-names:
> > > > + items:
> > > > + - const: std
> > > > + - const: ice
> > >
> > > reg-names looks like a new property, so it should be defined in
> > > top-level and just constrained per-variant.
> > >
> > > Also there was similar approach:
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20221209-dt-binding-ufs-v2-2-dc7a04699579@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> > >
> > > but I guess no resends and it can be superseded.
> >
> > Right, the patches got reviews but was never applied... I really need to
> > find a strategy to keep track of sent patches until they're applied with
> > my work mailbox, it's not the first time that a patch has gotten
> > forgotten.
>
> There was an error reported on the above series. Why would it be
> applied?
The error report at [0] complains about reg-names but I'm quite sure
that patch 2/3 resolves this error. Does your bot only apply one patch
at a time and run the check or apply all of them and then run it? It's
been a while but I'm fairly sure I ran all of the checks before sending
since I also documented some other patches in the cover letter there.
[0] https://lore.kernel.org/all/167241769341.1925758.17856681634949446114.robh@xxxxxxxxxx/
>
> That said, I'm not sure SCSI maintainers consistently apply DT only
> patch series.
>
> > With my private mailbox I just have a different folder for patches that
> > have been sent which I archive once they're applied, but with work GMail
> > I don't see how I can easily replicate this since it's also not grouping
> > threads properly.
>
> Yeah, GMail sucks for that. I use 'lei' to get all my patches and
> replies to them (though its caching will miss replies). Then I delete
> them from the mbox when they are applied or otherwise finished. lei
> updates won't re-add them to the mbox.
I'll try to figure something out with GMail.. Perhaps just adding a
label "not yet applied" which I manually remove once it's applied would
be sufficient.
Regards
Luca
>
> Rob
