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.
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
