On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 01:46:20PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 12/07/2023 11:48, Conor Dooley wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 10:41:31AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >> Samsung ARM/ARM64 SoCs (except legacy S5PV210) are also expected not to > >> bring any new dtbs_check warnings. In fact this have been already > >> enforced and tested since few release. > >> > >> Cc: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> --- > > > >> Not sure where to document this. Creating new maintainer profile for > >> Samsung SoC would be an overkill. OTOH, more SoCs might want to grow > >> this list, so this also scales poor. > > > > To me, this portion of the document was "information to the > > submaintainer", which would be you, not information to the contributors > > to the platform. Adding the comment about Samsung SoC seems aimed at > > contributors? > > Yes, I want to document it for contributors, so they won't be surprised. > Any hints where to store it? I could put it in the "About" tab of my > kernel.org repo, but no one checks this for contribution guidelines. I've not got a better suggestion for where to put this, but under something labelled as "Information for (new) Submaintainers" isn't where I would be looking as a contributor. Is adding to the generic DT documentation that dtbs_check should not add any new warnings at W=1 too extreme? writing-schema.rst has the instructions about how to run dtbs_check while writing dt-binding patches, but we don't seem to have any docs about running dtbs_check for dts/dtsi changes.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
