Re: [PATCH 2/2] dt-check-style: Handle indented fragments in indent-consistent

[sashiko-bot@kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Low] The error message for indentation mismatch ignores the newly added fragment prefix, leading to mathematically incorrect and highly confusing feedback for developers.
--

commit f969e2d48b468cab099652ff63ddd56c43afbb19
Author: Sven Peter <sven@kernel.org>

dt-check-style: Handle indented fragments in indent-consistent

This commit updates the indent-consistent check to account for constant
indentation prefixes in include fragments. It adds the fragment prefix
to the expected indentation and includes test fixtures.

> diff --git a/scripts/dtc/dt-check-style b/scripts/dtc/dt-check-style
> index 2afc05fa66023..f867cb6d80709 100755
> --- a/scripts/dtc/dt-check-style
> +++ b/scripts/dtc/dt-check-style
[ ... ]
> @@ -498,7 +499,7 @@ def check_indent_consistent(ctx):
>          # The indent must be 'unit' repeated dl.depth times, exactly.
>          # NODE_CLOSE lines have depth equal to the post-decrement value,
>          # which matches the indent expected.
> -        expected = unit * dl.depth
> +        expected = prefix + unit * dl.depth
>          if dl.indent_str != expected:
>              yield (dl.lineno,
>                     'indent mismatch (expected depth %d * %r)' %
>                     (dl.depth, unit))

[Severity: Low]
Should the error message be updated to reflect the newly calculated expected
indentation? Since expected now includes the prefix, printing just 
dl.depth * unit could be confusing for developers trying to match the
indentation required by the tool.

[ ... ]
> diff --git a/scripts/dtc/dt-style-selftest/expected/dts-fragment-indent.dtsi.txt b/scripts/dtc/dt-style-selftest/expected/dts-fragment-indent.dtsi.txt
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000000..84ec8eb734688
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/scripts/dtc/dt-style-selftest/expected/dts-fragment-indent.dtsi.txt
> @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
> +# mode=strict
> +bad/dts-fragment-indent.dtsi:9: [indent-consistent] indent mismatch (expected depth 2 * '\t')
> +bad/dts-fragment-indent.dtsi:10: [indent-consistent] indent mismatch (expected depth 2 * '\t')

[Severity: Low]
Does this test case intentionally assert the potentially misleading error 
message? If the message in check_indent_consistent is updated to include 
the prefix, this expected output would also need to be adjusted.

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260830-b4-dts-check-fix-v1-0-e7c1b2774730@kernel.org?part=2