Hello, On Fri Mar 1, 2024 at 4:35 PM CET, Rob Herring wrote: > On Fri, Mar 01, 2024 at 11:44:37AM +0100, Théo Lebrun wrote: > > Hello, > > > > On Fri Mar 1, 2024 at 11:13 AM CET, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > > On 01/03/2024 10:41, Théo Lebrun wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > 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? > > That's a good goal, but difficult to achieve as you can see. Given > dtbs_check in general has tons of warnings already, we currently don't > worry about more warnings in specific branches. We just look at mainline > and linux-next. And for that it's still so many, I'm just looking at > general trends. It runs daily here[1]. Here's my opportunity to ask a question I've had for a while: do you have a way to filter out dtbs that are known to be bad actors (ie have many many warnings)? Maybe a list of platforms you talk about below that aim at zero warnings? Another way to ask this: what would be a good default DT_SCHEMA_FILES value? Not filtering leads to way too many errors. Regards, -- Théo Lebrun, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
