On 12/07/2023 14:34, Conor Dooley wrote: > On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 01:46:20PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 12/07/2023 11:48, Conor Dooley wrote: >>> 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? >> >> Yes, I want to document it for contributors, so they won't be surprised. >> Any hints where to store it? I could put it in the "About" tab of my >> kernel.org repo, but no one checks this for contribution guidelines. > > I've not got a better suggestion for where to put this, but under > something labelled as "Information for (new) Submaintainers" isn't > where I would be looking as a contributor. Yeah, true. > Is adding to the generic DT documentation that dtbs_check should not add > any new warnings at W=1 too extreme? It is to extreme. Several sub-arch maintainers might prioritize features than DT schema compliance. I would say it is their choice, even if I don't agree with it. > writing-schema.rst has the instructions about how to run dtbs_check while > writing dt-binding patches, but we don't seem to have any docs about > running dtbs_check for dts/dtsi changes. Maybe I will add generic maintainer-sub-arch-soc profile doc which then can be linked by multiple soc subsystems. Best regards, Krzysztof
