Hello, On Fri Mar 1, 2024 at 12:35 PM CET, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 01/03/2024 11:44, Théo Lebrun wrote: > > On Fri Mar 1, 2024 at 11:13 AM CET, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >> On 01/03/2024 10:41, Théo Lebrun wrote: > >>> On Fri Mar 1, 2024 at 7:53 AM CET, Guenter Roeck wrote: > >>>> On 2/29/24 22:37, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >>>>> On 29/02/2024 19:10, Théo Lebrun wrote: > >>>>>> Reference common hwmon schema which has the generic "label" property, > >>>>>> parsed by Linux hwmon subsystem. > >>>>> > >>>>> Please do not mix independent patchsets. You create unneeded > >>>>> dependencies blocking this patch. This patch depends on hwmon work, so > >>>>> it cannot go through different tree. > >>> > >>> I had to pick between this or dtbs_check failing on my DTS that uses a > >>> label on temperature-sensor@48. > >> > >> I don't see how is that relevant. You can organize your branches as you > >> wish, e.g. base one b4 branch on another and you will not have any warnings. > > > > That is what I do, I however do not want mips-next to have errors when > > running dtbs_check. Having dtbs_check return errors is not an issue? > > You should ask your maintainer, but I don't understand how this is > achievable anyway. Subsystem bindings *should not* go via MIPS-next, so > how are you going to solve this? I thought it'd go in hwmon-next and be picked up by mips-next as well. It's clear now that the right approach is to send the lm75.yaml patch alone. I'll wait some more before sending a new revision that drops this lm75.yaml patch. Have a nice day, -- Théo Lebrun, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
