On 14/07/2023 14:50, Conor Dooley wrote: > Hey Krzysztof, > > On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 10:47:24AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> Some SoC platforms require that commits must not bring any new >> dtbs_check warnings. Maintainers of such platforms usually have some >> automation set, so any new warning will be spotted sooner or later. >> Worst case: they run the tests themselves. Document requirements for >> such platforms, so contributors can expect their patches being dropped >> or ignored, if they bring new warnings for existing boards. > > Definitely a more scalable approach than your previous version! > >> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> .../process/maintainer-handbooks.rst | 1 + >> .../process/maintainer-soc-clean-dts.rst | 22 +++++++++++++++++++ >> MAINTAINERS | 2 +- >> 3 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> create mode 100644 Documentation/process/maintainer-soc-clean-dts.rst >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/process/maintainer-handbooks.rst b/Documentation/process/maintainer-handbooks.rst >> index 9992bfd7eaa3..976391cec528 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/process/maintainer-handbooks.rst >> +++ b/Documentation/process/maintainer-handbooks.rst >> @@ -17,5 +17,6 @@ Contents: >> >> maintainer-netdev >> maintainer-soc >> + maintainer-soc-clean-dts >> maintainer-tip >> maintainer-kvm-x86 >> diff --git a/Documentation/process/maintainer-soc-clean-dts.rst b/Documentation/process/maintainer-soc-clean-dts.rst >> new file mode 100644 >> index 000000000000..87feeb5543ff >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/Documentation/process/maintainer-soc-clean-dts.rst >> @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@ >> +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 >> + >> +============================= >> +SoC Platforms with Strict DTS > > I don't think that this title makes much sense, it feels like it has > been truncated. Perhaps add "Requirements" to the end? OK, but maybe better then SoC Platforms with DTS Compliance Requirements ? > >> +============================= >> + >> +Overview >> +-------- >> + >> +SoC platforms or subarchitectures follow all the rules from > > s/follow/should follow/? Ack > >> +Documentation/process/maintainer-soc.rst. However platforms referencing this >> +document impose additional requirements listed below. >> + >> +Strict DTS DT schema compliance >> +------------------------------- > Should there be a blank line here to match the other section headings? Ack > Also, to match the title case you used elsewhere, "Schema Compliance"? Ack > >> +None of the changes to the SoC platform Devicetree sources (DTS files) can >> +bring new ``make dtbs_check W=1`` warnings. The platform maintainers have > > Nitpickery again, but perhaps the first sentence here would read better as > "No changes to the SoC platform Devicetree sources (DTS files) should > introduce new ``make dtbs_check W=1`` warnings."? Ack > >> +automation in place which should point out any new warnings. >> + >> +If a commit introducing new warning gets accepted somehow, the resulting issues >> +shall be fixed in reasonable time (e.g. within one release) or the commit >> +reverted. > > It is loosely related, but I was wondering if we should also try to push > people that change the platform's bindings to update the DTS also, so > that binding changes do not introduce W=1 complaints? Makes sense, we could add such rule to Devicetree maintainer profile. Anyway enforcing it relies on Rob's bot reporting the warnings, which seems silent recently. > For many bindings the platform entry in MAINTAINERS does not cover them, > but things like the arm64 Apple stuff mention them specifically & others > will get coverage due to regexes. > > Anyway, nitpickery aside I like this approach. > Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Best regards, Krzysztof
