Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] dt-bindings: mfd: qcom,spmi-pmic: Add pm8916 vm-bms and lbc

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>]

On 25/10/2023 14:57, Nikita Travkin wrote:
> Lee Jones писал(а) 25.10.2023 17:21:
>> On Tue, 24 Oct 2023, Nikita Travkin wrote:
>>
>>> Rob Herring писал(а) 23.10.2023 22:40:
>>>> On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 11:20:32 +0500, Nikita Travkin wrote:
>>>>> PM8916 (and probably some other similar pmics) have hardware blocks for
>>>>> battery monitoring and charging. Add patterns for respecive nodes so the
>>>>> devicetree for those blocks can be validated properly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Nikita Travkin <nikita@trvn.ru>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom,spmi-pmic.yaml | 6 ++++++
>>>>>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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/dt-review-ci/linux/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom,spmi-pmic.yaml:
>>>> Error in referenced schema matching $id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/power/supply/qcom,pm8916-bms-vm.yaml
>>>>
>>>> doc reference errors (make refcheckdocs):
>>>>
>>>> See https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/devicetree-bindings/patch/20231023-pm8916-dtsi-bms-lbc-v2-1-343e3dbf423e@trvn.ru
>>>>
>>>> The base for the series is generally the latest rc1. A different dependency
>>>> should be noted in *this* patch.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Somehow I missed the memo and thought it tracks -next...
>>>
>>> This patch depends on 7f590e3831 and 5cee843d56 in linux-next.git
>>> They were applied in [1].
>>>
>>> I'm wondering if the bot just bails out when the "depend" is present
>>> or there is some more sophisticated logic to suggest the base to it?
>>
>> So is this good to go, or not?
> 
> IMO this patch should be good, it passes the check on today's linux-next
> on my end.

It's not the next which matters, but maintainers tree.

> 
> The only concern might be that if someone runs dt_binding_check on
> for-mfd-next, it would skip that file with an error since there is no
> dependency yet.

Eee, so this has dependency on some other tree? Then no, it is not good
to go.



Best regards,
Krzysztof