Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] dt-bindings: serial: Convert Cortina-Access UART to json-schema

[Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>]

On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 10:06 AM Alex Nemirovsky
<Alex.Nemirovsky@cortina-access.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 15, 2021, at 8:44 AM, Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 8:39 AM Alex Nemirovsky
> > <Alex.Nemirovsky@cortina-access.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Jun 15, 2021, at 7:13 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 01:36:39PM +0000, Alex Nemirovsky wrote:
> >>>> MAINTAINERS modification was made in the initial version 1.  We made no changes to it since then,
> >>>> thus not sure what we could at to  Changelog which would add value or clarity for others
> >>>> from the v1.
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Jun 15, 2021, at 4:53 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Sun, May 09, 2021 at 11:45:17AM -0700, Alex Nemirovsky wrote:
> >>>>>> From: Jason Li <jason.li@cortina-access.com>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Convert the Cortina-Access UART binding to DT schema format.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jason Li <jason.li@cortina-access.com>
> >>>>>> ---
> >>>>>> .../serial/cortina-access,serial.yaml         | 46 +++++++++++++++++++
> >>>>>> .../devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml  |  2 +
> >>>>>> MAINTAINERS                                   |  6 +++
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You are also adding a MAINTAINERS entry here, which is not listed in the
> >>>>> changelog text, so I couldn't take it anyway :(
> >>>
> >>> Add the maintainers entry in the first patch, with the driver please.
> >>
> >> The change to MAINTAINERS here add a new file into the DT documentation.
> >> Should it not be grouped into the dt-binding portion and reviewed by the DT time for which this patch
> >> is CC’ed to? Why would moving the DT documentation file that is introduced be into the first patch, which is the
> >> serial driver itself be the correct approach?
> >
> > The binding doesn't actually need a MAINTAINERS entry (though having
> > one is fine). get_maintainers.pl will also pull emails from the
> > binding schema.
> >
> > Rob
>
> Hi Rob,
> It sounds like you are find with patch 2/3 from a DT point of view.  Could we review the rest from the DT point of view
> to get either feedback for changes or ACK these, so we can unblock this series?

Can't say I've seen it as I only see replies in my mail. Did this
originally go to the DT list? If not, it's never in my queue[1].

Rob

[1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/devicetree-bindings/list/