On 26/03/2024 15:07, Nícolas F. R. A. Prado wrote: >> Other reports, like for cases when only parts of patch is applied, could >> be also useful but I am afraid you will generate way too much of them. >> Binding is supposed to go via subsystem, DTS via SoC, so basically 90% >> of patchsets might have some sort of delays resulting in dtbs_check >> false positive warnings. >> >> For my SoC I check my trees, mainline and next, and keep adding list of >> exceptions for expected issues. What's useful for Qualcomm? Konrad, > > Is that list of exceptions in-tree? If there are known false-positives (issues None of the warnings - C, sparse, smatch, coccinelle, Coverity, dtc, dtbs_check - are stored in-tree. I don't think dtbs_check should be here exception, because all these warnings can be fixed - it's just a matter of effort. ARM64 Exynos is warning free since a year. ARM Exynos similarly, but with one undocumented compatible and few bumps due to intra-cycle DTS changes. > that can't be "properly" fixed), they should be public knowledge. And if we all They are "public": https://github.com/krzk/tools/blob/master/buildbot/master_build_common.py#L26 but I don't know how to make them public and usable knowledge. Best regards, Krzysztof
