Re: [PATCH v5 2/4] dt-bindings: cpufreq: apple,soc-cpufreq: Add binding for Apple SoC cpufreq

[Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>]

On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 5:28 PM Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 12:17:08AM +0900, Hector Martin wrote:
> > On 29/11/2022 23.34, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > On 29/11/2022 15:00, Hector Martin wrote:
> > >> On 29/11/2022 20.36, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > >> Please, let's introspect about this for a moment. Something is deeply
> > >> broken if people with 25+ years being an arch maintainer can't get a
> > >
> > > If arch maintainer sends patches which does not build (make
> > > dt_binding_check), then what do you exactly expect? Accept them just
> > > because it is 25+ years of experience or a maintainer? So we have
> > > difference processes - for beginners code should compile. For
> > > experienced people, it does not have to build because otherwise they
> > > will get discouraged?
> >
> > I expect the process to not be so confusing and frustrating that a
> > maintainer with 25+ years of experience gives up. That the bindings
> > didn't pass the checker is besides the point. People say the Linux
> > kernel community is hostile to newbies. This issue proves it's not just
> > newbies, the process is failing even experienced folks.
>
> IME, a lack of response is a bigger issue and more frustrating.
>
> > On that specific issue, any other functional open source project would
> > have the binding checks be a CI bot, with a friendly message telling you
> > what to do to fix it, and it would re-run when you push to the PR again,
> > which is a *much* lower friction action than sending a whole new patch
> > series out for review via email (if you don't agree with this, then
> > you're not the average contributor - the Linux kernel is by far the
> > scariest major open source project to contribute to, and I think most
> > people would agree with me on that).
>
> We could probably add a $ci_provider job description to do that. In
> fact, I did try that once[1]. The challenge would be what to run if
> there's multiple maintainers doing something. Otherwise, it's a
> maintainer creating their own thing which we have too much of already.

Actually, turns out this pretty much already exists with my CI. I just
had to turn on merge requests on the project. If anyone actually uses
it, I'll have to tweak it to not do 'make dtbs_check' because that is
really slow. And this all runs on my machines, so that is another
issue. It already is just running it for patches on the list (which is
a different CI job).

Just create a MR here:

https://gitlab.com/robherring/linux-dt/-/merge_requests

Rob