Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] dt-bindings: net: bluetooth: Add NXP bluetooth support

Luiz Augusto von Dentz
2023-01-25T01:04:22Z

Hi Rob,

On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 3:08 PM Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 3:44 PM Luiz Augusto von Dentz
> <luiz.dentz@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Rob, Tedd,
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 11:06 AM Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, 24 Jan 2023 23:17:13 +0530, Neeraj Sanjay Kale wrote:
> > > > Add binding document for generic and legacy NXP bluetooth
> > > > chipset.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Neeraj Sanjay Kale <neeraj.sanjaykale@nxp.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > .../bindings/net/bluetooth/nxp-bluetooth.yaml | 67 +++++++++++++++++++
> > > > 1 file changed, 67 insertions(+)
> > > > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/bluetooth/nxp-bluetooth.yaml
> > > >
> > >
> > > My bot found errors running 'make DT_CHECKER_FLAGS=-m dt_binding_check'
> > > on your patch (DT_CHECKER_FLAGS is new in v5.13):
> > >
> > > yamllint warnings/errors:
> > > ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/bluetooth/nxp-bluetooth.yaml:67:1: [warning] too many blank lines (2 > 1) (empty-lines)
> > >
> > > dtschema/dtc warnings/errors:
> > > Error: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/bluetooth/nxp-bluetooth.example.dts:18.9-15 syntax error
> > > FATAL ERROR: Unable to parse input tree
> > > make[1]: *** [scripts/Makefile.lib:434: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/bluetooth/nxp-bluetooth.example.dtb] Error 1
> > > make[1]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
> > > make: *** [Makefile:1508: dt_binding_check] Error 2
> >
> > I wonder if that is something that we could incorporate to our CI,
> > perhaps we can detect if the subject starts with dt-binding then we
> > attempt to make with DT_CHECKER_FLAGS, thoughts?
>
> What CI is that?

We have github actions that we run when a new patch appears on patchwork e.g:

https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/bluetooth/patch/20230124174714.2775680-3-neeraj.sanjaykale@nxp.com/

> Better to look at the diffstat of the patch than subject. Lots of
> subjects are wrong and I suspect there would be a fairly high
> correlation of wrong subjects to schema errors.

For now I'd keep it simple since otherwise we would have to probably
attempt to apply and make with DT_CHECKER_FLAGS every patch, well
perhaps that is ok if that doesn't produce too many false positives,
otherwise we have to filter the output like we do with the likes of
smatch and building with make W=1 C=1.

> Rob

--
Luiz Augusto von Dentz