On Tue, Nov 05, 2024 at 10:39:34AM +1030, Andrew Jeffery wrote: > Hi Conor, > > On Mon, 2024-11-04 at 18:49 +0000, Conor Dooley wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 04, 2024 at 08:39:21AM -0600, Rob Herring (Arm) wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 04 Nov 2024 14:52:14 +0530, Naresh Solanki wrote: > > > > Document the new compatibles used on IBM SBP1. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Naresh Solanki <naresh.solanki@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Acked-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > Changes in V4: > > > > - Retain Acked-by from v2. > > > > - Fix alphabetic order > > > > --- > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/aspeed/aspeed.yaml | 1 + > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > > > > > > > > > > My bot found new DTB warnings on the .dts files added or changed in > > > this > > > series. > > > > > > Some warnings may be from an existing SoC .dtsi. Or perhaps the > > > warnings > > > are fixed by another series. Ultimately, it is up to the platform > > > maintainer whether these warnings are acceptable or not. No need to > > > reply > > > unless the platform maintainer has comments. > > > > > > If you already ran DT checks and didn't see these error(s), then > > > make sure dt-schema is up to date: > > > > > > pip3 install dtschema --upgrade > > > > > > > > > New warnings running 'make CHECK_DTBS=y aspeed/aspeed-bmc-ibm- > > > sbp1.dtb' for > > > 20241104092220.2268805-1-naresh.solanki@xxxxxxxxxxxxx: > > > > Really? This many warnings on a v6? > > > > I understand that it's surprising and disappointing, however these > warnings are from the Aspeed DTSIs and not directly from the proposed > DTS. Many are an artefact of history, and I'm (slowly) working to clean > them up. Recently I haven't had any time to dedicate to that effort, > and as I'm somewhat responsible for the state of things, I'm not > prepared to block other people's patches and push my own > responsibilities onto them. Ah, you see that's where I would say "no new warnings" and get the submitter to fix them ;) And were I the submitter, I'd want to resolve the warnings rather than run into issues down the road when things get "fixed"/documented. But I guess that's why I have the schmucks task of reviewing bindings innit.. > I've been replying to those proposing new Aspeed-based devicetrees to > separate the warnings they're introducing from the warnings that > already exist, and requiring them to fix the issues they're responsible > for. I hope that I'll have time to continue to improve the situation, > as this is obviously a tedious task for me too. Well, it is your platform and if you're confident that these nodes are correct despite the warnings, who am I to stop you!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
