On 20.03.2024 8:08 PM, Nícolas F. R. A. Prado wrote: > On Sat, Mar 09, 2024 at 02:15:01PM +0100, Konrad Dybcio wrote: >> Wire up LMH on QCM2290 and fix a bad bug while at it. >> >> P1-2 for thermal, P3 for qcom >> >> Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> Changes in v2: >> - Pick up tags >> - Fix a couple typos in commit messages >> - Drop stray msm8998 binding addition >> - Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240308-topic-rb1_lmh-v1-0-50c60ffe1130@xxxxxxxxxx >> >> --- >> Konrad Dybcio (2): >> dt-bindings: thermal: lmh: Add QCM2290 compatible >> thermal: qcom: lmh: Check for SCM availability at probe >> >> Loic Poulain (1): >> arm64: dts: qcom: qcm2290: Add LMH node >> >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/qcom-lmh.yaml | 12 ++++++++---- >> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qcm2290.dtsi | 14 +++++++++++++- >> drivers/thermal/qcom/lmh.c | 3 +++ >> 3 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > Hi, > > I've started tracking the results of 'make dtbs_check' on linux-next, and I've > noticed that on today's next, next-20240320, there's a new warning coming from > this. The reason is that the DT change has landed, but the binding has not, > since it goes through a separate tree. I thought the binding was supposed to > always land before the driver and DT that make use of it, but looking through > the dt-binding documentation pages I couldn't find anything confirming or > denying that. Yes, that's the ideal way of things happening.. > > I expect this to happen again in the future, which is why I'm reaching out to > understand better how to deal with this kind of situation. ..but due to the kernel dev process, doing that across multiple trees would either require constant agreements on immutable branches containing bindings, mixing patches across trees, or delaying dts changes by a cycle or so Konrad
