Re: [PATCH 2/2] docs: process: maintainer-soc-clean-dts: linux-next is decisive

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

On 26/02/2025 16:29, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 07:48:22PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> Devicetree bindings patches go usually via driver subsystem tree, so
>> obviously testing only SoC branches would result in new dtbs_check
>> warnings.  Mention that linux-next branch is decisice for zero-warnings
>> rule.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
>> ---
>>  Documentation/process/maintainer-soc-clean-dts.rst | 5 +++--
>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/process/maintainer-soc-clean-dts.rst b/Documentation/process/maintainer-soc-clean-dts.rst
>> index 1b32430d0cfc..5423fb7d6047 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/process/maintainer-soc-clean-dts.rst
>> +++ b/Documentation/process/maintainer-soc-clean-dts.rst
>> @@ -17,8 +17,9 @@ Strict DTS DT Schema and dtc Compliance
>>  No changes to the SoC platform Devicetree sources (DTS files) should introduce
>>  new ``make dtbs_check W=1`` warnings.  Warnings in a new board DTS, which are
>>  results of issues in an included DTSI file, are considered existing, not new
>> -warnings.  The platform maintainers have automation in place which should point
>> -out any new warnings.
>> +warnings.  For series split between different trees (DT bindings go via driver
>> +subsystem tree), warnings on linux-next are decisive.  The platform maintainers
>> +have automation in place which should point out any new warnings.
> 
> I see a lot of warnings due to dependencies (both bindings and other dts 
> changes) not be applied yet (or applied but not in linux-next). I've 
> been filtering those out, but maybe they're useful? Some are things like 
> missing labels, so dtc fails. I think that gets run enough a failure 
> report on it isn't too useful.
Maintainer-soc-clean-dts is an opt-in and so far only two guys in kernel
opted-in: for Arm/Arm64 one Samsung dude and for other archs only the
Risc-v guy.

Total coincidence is that these two do the DT bindings reviews...

I would say most of such warnings are very useful, just the question is
how much of false positives you have. For example LKP (Kernel test
robot) was sending reports on maintainer branches, but that had too many
false reports due to missing bindings going via different tree, e.g.
driver subsystem tree.

Best regards,
Krzysztof