Re: [RFC RFT PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: mtd: partitions: Document new partition-dynamic nodes

[Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>]

On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 04:57:40PM +0100, Ansuel Smith wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 20, 2022 at 08:36:09PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 18:39:04 +0100, Ansuel Smith wrote:
> > > Document new partition-dynamic nodes used to provide an OF node for
> > > partition registred at runtime by parsers. This is required for nvmem
> > > system to declare and detect nvmem-cells.
> > > 
> > > With these special partitions, only the label is required as the parser
> > > will provide reg and offset of the mtd. NVMEM will use the data from the
> > > parser and provide the NVMEM cells declared in the DTS, "connecting" the
> > > dynamic partition with a static declaration of cells in them.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Ansuel Smith <ansuelsmth@gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > >  .../mtd/partitions/partition-dynamic.yaml     | 54 +++++++++++++++++++
> > >  1 file changed, 54 insertions(+)
> > >  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/partition-dynamic.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:
> > 
> > dtschema/dtc warnings/errors:
> > /builds/robherring/linux-dt-review/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/partition-dynamic.example.dt.yaml: partitions: '#address-cells', '#size-cells', 'art' do not match any of the regexes: 'pinctrl-[0-9]+'
> > 	From schema: /builds/robherring/linux-dt-review/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/qcom,smem-part.yaml
> > 
> > doc reference errors (make refcheckdocs):
> > 
> > See https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1595230
> > 
> > This check can fail if there are any dependencies. The base for a patch
> > series is generally the most recent rc1.
> > 
> > If you already ran 'make dt_binding_check' and didn't see the above
> > error(s), then make sure 'yamllint' is installed and dt-schema is up to
> > date:
> > 
> > pip3 install dtschema --upgrade
> > 
> > Please check and re-submit.
> > 
> 
> Considering the idea of this partition-dynamic, should these warning be
> ignored or the smem-part should include the ref of these new partitions?

We can't have warnings. 

> Or should I remove the example?

Doesn't that just kick the problem to actual users?

> (or should I add the example to smem-part instead of partition-dynamic)

That shouldn't matter I think...

Rob