Re: [PATCH V5 1/5] dt-bindings: iio/adc: Move QCOM ADC bindings to iio/adc folder

[Jishnu Prakash <jishnu.prakash@oss.qualcomm.com>]

Hi Krzysztof,

On 2/26/2025 2:41 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 26/02/2025 09:51, Jishnu Prakash wrote:
>> Hi Krzysztof,
>>
>> On 2/2/2025 6:59 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On Sat, Feb 01, 2025 at 12:02:38AM +0530, Jishnu Prakash wrote:
>>>> There are several files containing QCOM ADC macros for channel names
>>>> right now in the include/dt-bindings/iio folder. Since all of these
>>>> are specifically for adc, move the files to the
>>>> include/dt-bindings/iio/adc folder.
>>>>
>>>> Also update all affected devicetree and driver files to fix compilation
>>>> errors seen with this move and update documentation files to fix
>>>> dtbinding check errors for the same.
>>>>
>>>> Acked-by: Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>
>>>> Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jishnu Prakash <jishnu.prakash@oss.qualcomm.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> Changes since v4:
>>>> - Updated some more devicetree files requiring this change.
>>>
>>> I don't get why this fails building and nothing here nor in cover letter
>>> helps me to understand that.
>>>
>>
>> I have tried checking multiple ways for anything missing in my build setup, but I'm not getting this error when building in my local workspace. But the error itself looks invalid to me.
> 
> So probably false positive / automation issue.
> 
> Maybe describe just in case in the changelog that you run full
> dt_binding_check and no errors were reported.
> 

I can do that, but do you mean I should just push this same patch again
with only that update in the changelog? 

I'm asking because I suspect this patch will get the same error again. I
remember that this patch 1 got the exact same invalid error (qcom,spmi-vadc.h missing)
in my V4 patch series. At that time, I thought this may be some rare corner
case error which might not always happen, but that seems wrong now.

Please let me know, is it better to keep this single patch for the binding file
movement and reviewers can overlook the invalid error from the bot, or should I split
this patch, like I suggested in my previous mail ?

Thanks,
Jishnu

> BTW, please wrap your emails.
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof