On 25/10/2023 14:57, Nikita Travkin wrote: > Lee Jones писал(а) 25.10.2023 17:21: >> On Tue, 24 Oct 2023, Nikita Travkin wrote: >> >>> Rob Herring писал(а) 23.10.2023 22:40: >>>> On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 11:20:32 +0500, Nikita Travkin wrote: >>>>> PM8916 (and probably some other similar pmics) have hardware blocks for >>>>> battery monitoring and charging. Add patterns for respecive nodes so the >>>>> devicetree for those blocks can be validated properly. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Nikita Travkin <nikita@xxxxxxx> >>>>> --- >>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom,spmi-pmic.yaml | 6 ++++++ >>>>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) >>>>> >>>> >>>> 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/dt-review-ci/linux/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom,spmi-pmic.yaml: >>>> Error in referenced schema matching $id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/power/supply/qcom,pm8916-bms-vm.yaml >>>> >>>> doc reference errors (make refcheckdocs): >>>> >>>> See https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/devicetree-bindings/patch/20231023-pm8916-dtsi-bms-lbc-v2-1-343e3dbf423e@xxxxxxx >>>> >>>> The base for the series is generally the latest rc1. A different dependency >>>> should be noted in *this* patch. >>>> >>> >>> Somehow I missed the memo and thought it tracks -next... >>> >>> This patch depends on 7f590e3831 and 5cee843d56 in linux-next.git >>> They were applied in [1]. >>> >>> I'm wondering if the bot just bails out when the "depend" is present >>> or there is some more sophisticated logic to suggest the base to it? >> >> So is this good to go, or not? > > IMO this patch should be good, it passes the check on today's linux-next > on my end. It's not the next which matters, but maintainers tree. > > The only concern might be that if someone runs dt_binding_check on > for-mfd-next, it would skip that file with an error since there is no > dependency yet. Eee, so this has dependency on some other tree? Then no, it is not good to go. Best regards, Krzysztof
