Re: [PATCH v23 1/2] dt-bindings: pwm: opencores: Update compatibles, examples and maintainers

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On 16/10/2026 14:55, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello Krzysztof,
> 
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2026 at 12:27:16PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2026 at 12:20:54PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
>>> Hello Krzysztof,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2026 at 11:01:29AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 14/10/2026 13:04, Hal Feng wrote:
>>>>> Remove the jh8100 compatible since the JH8100 SoC has been canceled and
>>>>> will not be released.
>>>>>
>>>>> Change the register size in examples to 0x10, since an OpenCores PTC IP
>>>>> has only 4 32-bit registers: CNTR, HRC, LRC and CTRL.
>>>>>
>>>>> I will maintain this pwm module in place of William.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tested-by: Maud Spierings <maud_spierings@hotmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> Drop, did not happen. Is it so tricky to respond to the one patch here,
>>>> where the tag would be applicable, instead of replying to cover letter?
>>>
>>> I don't know what Maud did, but if they checked that the various dt
>>> linters are still happy, that doesn't deserve a Tested-by:?
>>
>> No. Why would compilation be called testing?
> 
> I'd call the task of checking if anything breaks with the proposed
> changes testing. For changes to .c files that most likely requires
> complilation and running the resulting code on a machine. For dt binding
> changes it means "testing" if all the existing device trees still
> conform to the new binding because you cannot compile and run the
> binding specifications. So in my mind this is still testing and a
> Tested-by trailer is ok and welcome for me.

Running standard build process tools, like checkpatch, sparse,
gcc/clang, dt-validate is not testing.

Best regards,
Krzysztof