On 13:10-20210818, Sinthu Raja wrote: > The example includes a board-specific compatible property, but developers > need to add the board name each time when a new board is added to the K3 > J721E SoC list. This grows the compatible string-list. So, drop the > board-specific compatible string and add cbass_main as a parent node to What is cbass_main node? > avoid parent node and child node address-cells mismatch error. > I think you mean that since the existing example uses address cells and size for 64bit addresses and sizes, you are introducing a bus segment indicative of the same capability to reduce the churn in the binding. Correct? if so, rephrase accordingly. > Signed-off-by: Sinthu Raja <sinthu.raja@xxxxxx> Your From: and Signed-off-by email IDs do not match. You might want to re-read the contribution guidelines documentation in linux kernel. This should be also tagged with Fixes: since it is fixing a pre-existing binding that slipped through our review. NOTE: at least my test.. (I think rob's system will still complain) base: next-20210818 b4 am -o ~/tmp -3 -g -t -l -c -s --no-cover 20210818074030.1877-1-sinthu.raja@xxxxxx https://pastebin.ubuntu.com/p/VxzzvzpY9N/ I mean, both these can be caught with checkpatch and standard checks, so did you see that in your basic vett prior to posting? > --- > Changes in V1: > Fixed alignment issue which caused the yaml parse error. Some 101 comments: A) when you post a new revision, post a url like previous versions in diffstat - : https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/20210817152005.21575-1-sinthu.raja@xxxxxx/ B) When you are sending the very first patch, it is already V1 and does'nt need to be explicitly stated. this update to your original post is a V2, so, when you update this patch to address the review comments, the next revision will be V3. > > .../devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-dsp-rproc.yaml | 6 ++---- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-dsp-rproc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-dsp-rproc.yaml > index 6070456a7b67..e44a9397b8db 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-dsp-rproc.yaml > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-dsp-rproc.yaml > @@ -132,10 +132,8 @@ required: > unevaluatedProperties: false > > examples: > - - | > - / { > - model = "Texas Instruments K3 J721E SoC"; > - compatible = "ti,j721e"; > + - |+ minor detail: you are also doing one additional change -> you are now using the standard example template and adding the example node instead of a complete example node as well here. Personally, I do prefer this approach rather than the previous example. > + cbass_main { > #address-cells = <2>; > #size-cells = <2>; Usually, when one sees problems like these, they tend to be symptomatic, and we need to look if there is a similar pattern of error else where in the codebase. Sigh, in this case, I see the same problem in: a) Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml b) Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwlock/ti,omap-hwspinlock.yaml Hari, Sinthu, Can we fix these in a series that belongs to each maintainer? > > -- > 2.31.1 > -- Regards, Nishanth Menon Key (0xDDB5849D1736249D) / Fingerprint: F8A2 8693 54EB 8232 17A3 1A34 DDB5 849D 1736 249D
