On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 10:41:31AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > Samsung ARM/ARM64 SoCs (except legacy S5PV210) are also expected not to > bring any new dtbs_check warnings. In fact this have been already > enforced and tested since few release. > > Cc: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > Not sure where to document this. Creating new maintainer profile for > Samsung SoC would be an overkill. OTOH, more SoCs might want to grow > this list, so this also scales poor. To me, this portion of the document was "information to the submaintainer", which would be you, not information to the contributors to the platform. Adding the comment about Samsung SoC seems aimed at contributors? I added the bit about W=1 on RISC-V since there are multiple sub-maintainers there. > --- > Documentation/process/maintainer-soc.rst | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/maintainer-soc.rst b/Documentation/process/maintainer-soc.rst > index 49f08289d62c..12637530d68f 100644 > --- a/Documentation/process/maintainer-soc.rst > +++ b/Documentation/process/maintainer-soc.rst > @@ -133,8 +133,8 @@ with the dt-bindings that describe the ABI. Please read the section > more information on the validation of devicetrees. > > For new platforms, or additions to existing ones, ``make dtbs_check`` should not > -add any new warnings. For RISC-V, as it has the advantage of being a newer > -architecture, ``make dtbs_check W=1`` is required to not add any new warnings. > +add any new warnings. For RISC-V and Samsung SoC, ``make dtbs_check W=1`` is > +required to not add any new warnings. > If in any doubt about a devicetree change, reach out to the devicetree > maintainers. > > -- > 2.34.1 >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
