Re: [PATCH 2/2] iio: pressure: adp810: Add driver for adp810 sensor

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com>]

On Fri, Oct 24, 2025 at 11:20:10PM +0530, Akhilesh Patil wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2025 at 11:37:01AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 24, 2025 at 11:34:37AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2025 at 08:18:21AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > > On 23/10/2025 20:51, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, Oct 12, 2025 at 05:12:26AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > > >> On 11/10/2025 16:10, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > >>> On Sat, Oct 11, 2025 at 3:25 PM Akhilesh Patil <akhilesh@ee.iitb.ac.in> wrote:

...

> > > > >>>> +F:     Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/pressure/aosong,adp810.yaml
> > > > >>>> +F:     drivers/iio/pressure/adp810.c
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Some tools will report an orphaned yaml file if you apply patch 1
> > > > >>> without patch 2.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> You mean checkpatch? That warning is not really relevant. Adding
> > > > >> maintainers entry here for both files is perfectly fine and correct.
> > > > > 
> > > > > It's relevant as long as I see (false positive) warnings from it. Can somebody
> > > > 
> > > > No, it is not relevant. Just because tool is inefficient does not allow
> > > > you to point such nitpicks. You as reviewer are supposed to find
> > > > difference which checkpatch warnings are important and which are not and
> > > > DO NOT bother contributors with useless points that there is some
> > > > orphaned file according to checkpatch.
> > > > 
> > > > > shut the checkpatch up about missing DT files in the MAINTAINERS?
> > > > 
> > > > That would be great but, if no one does it your comments on "orphaned
> > > > file" are counter productive.
> > > 
> > > Something like this?
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> > > index 6729f18e5654..818b49d314ce 100755
> > > --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> > > +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> > > @@ -3441,11 +3441,17 @@ sub process {
> > >  		     ($line =~ /\{\s*([\w\/\.\-]*)\s*\=\>\s*([\w\/\.\-]*)\s*\}/ &&
> > >  		      (defined($1) || defined($2))))) {
> > >  			$is_patch = 1;
> > > -			$reported_maintainer_file = 1;
> > > -			WARN("FILE_PATH_CHANGES",
> > > -			     "added, moved or deleted file(s), does MAINTAINERS need updating?\n" . $herecurr);
> > > +			# DT bindings are incorporate maintainer information, no need to report
> > > +			if ($realfile !~ m@^Documentation/devicetree/bindings/@)) {
> > > +				$reported_maintainer_file = 1;
> > > +				WARN("FILE_PATH_CHANGES",
> > > +				     "added, moved or deleted file(s), does MAINTAINERS need updating?\n" . $herecurr);
> > > +			}
> > >  		}
> > 
> > > +		    ($realfile =~ m@^Documentation/devicetree/bindings/.*\.txt$@)) {
> > > +			if ($realfile =~ m@^include/asm/@) {
> > 
> > These two lines are leftovers that needs to be removed, of course.
> > 
> > Akhilesh, can you give a try of this change and see if the original DT schema
> > binding patch is not reported anymore?
> 
> Hi Andy. I tested checkpatch.pl patch you suggested here. checkpatch
> does NOT show the warning now on my dt-bindings patch. Thanks for
> initiating this script improvement.
> I believe this is kernel wide script improvement and best to take
> independently if I understood correctly.

Definitely. May I use your Tested-by tag?

> > >  # Check for adding new DT bindings not in schema format
> > >  		if (!$in_commit_log &&
> > >  		    ($line =~ /^new file mode\s*\d+\s*$/) &&

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko