On 09/11/2021 14:20, Conor.Dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On 09/11/2021 13:04, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>>
>> On 09/11/2021 13:58, Conor.Dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>> On 09/11/2021 12:53, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>>>>
>>>> On 09/11/2021 13:16, Conor.Dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>>> On 09/11/2021 04:06, Rob Herring wrote:
>>>>>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 08 Nov 2021 15:05:51 +0000, conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>>>>> From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Add device tree bindings for the {q,}spi controller on
>>>>>>> the Microchip PolarFire SoC.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> .../bindings/spi/microchip,mpfs-spi.yaml | 72 +++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 72 insertions(+)
>>>>>>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/microchip,mpfs-spi.yaml
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/microchip,mpfs-spi.example.dts:19:18: fatal error: dt-bindings/clock/microchip,mpfs-clock.h: No such file or directory
>>>>>> 19 | #include "dt-bindings/clock/microchip,mpfs-clock.h"
>>>>> Rob,
>>>>> Should I drop the header from the example or is there a way for me
>>>>> specify the dependent patch to pass this check?
>>>>
>>>> The error has to be fixed, although not necessarily by dropping the
>>>> header, but by posting it. How this can pass on your system? There is no
>>>> such file added in this patchset.
>>> I linked the patch adding the clock as a dependency in the cover letter
>>> [1], which is why I was wondering if there was a better way to do so
>>> that would get picked up by the checker bot.
>>
>> It's not only about the bot, but dependency when applied. If you did not
>> warn clk maintainer that clock bindings should go via Rob's tree or
>> should be provided as a tag, the patches here cannot be applied in this
>> cycle.
> It was not my (our) intention to send the clock patches via rob's tree.
> And since this is my first time trying to upstream wholescale changes to
> a device tree I honestly didn't expect this series to get accepted in
> this cycle anyway.
OK :)
Assuming your new bindings pass db_binding_check with
DT_CHECKER_FLAGS=-m (on top of clock patch), I propose to keep the
header here.
Another idea would be to submit without the header and use raw IDs
(numbers) and convert it later. I prefer the first- base on clock patches.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
