[PATCH v3 1/1] checkpatch: Don't warn on "orhapned" DT schema file

[PATCH v3 1/1] checkpatch: Don't warn on "orhapned" DT schema file

[Andy Shevchenko]

Currently checkpatch warns is the DT schema file is absent in MAINTAINERS.
However the DT schema files are self-contained in this sense and
have embedded information about maintainers of it. This is a requirement.
Hence, avoid checkpatch warning about it.

Tested-by: Akhilesh Patil <akhilesh@ee.iitb.ac.in>
Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
---

v3: removed Requested-by tag
v2: drop some leftovers


The motivation of the patch is that DT people complaining about checkpatch but
doing nothing about it. They should be more collaborative.

 scripts/checkpatch.pl | 9 ++++++---
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
index 6729f18e5654..db274a7c2fb0 100755
--- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
+++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
@@ -3441,9 +3441,12 @@ sub process {
 		     ($line =~ /\{\s*([\w\/\.\-]*)\s*\=\>\s*([\w\/\.\-]*)\s*\}/ &&
 		      (defined($1) || defined($2))))) {
 			$is_patch = 1;
-			$reported_maintainer_file = 1;
-			WARN("FILE_PATH_CHANGES",
-			     "added, moved or deleted file(s), does MAINTAINERS need updating?\n" . $herecurr);
+			# DT bindings are incorporate maintainer information, no need to report
+			if ($realfile !~ m@^Documentation/devicetree/bindings/@)) {
+				$reported_maintainer_file = 1;
+				WARN("FILE_PATH_CHANGES",
+				     "added, moved or deleted file(s), does MAINTAINERS need updating?\n" . $herecurr);
+			}
 		}
 
 # Check for adding new DT bindings not in schema format
-- 
2.50.1

Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] checkpatch: Don't warn on "orhapned" DT schema file

[Joe Perches]

On Mon, 2025-10-27 at 10:36 +0100, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> Currently checkpatch warns is the DT schema file is absent in MAINTAINERS.
> However the DT schema files are self-contained in this sense and
> have embedded information about maintainers of it. This is a requirement.
> Hence, avoid checkpatch warning about it.
> 
> Tested-by: Akhilesh Patil <akhilesh@ee.iitb.ac.in>
> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>

nackish.

Perhaps it'd be better to make checkpatch and get_maintainer have
some list of filename suffixes that are expected to have embedded
maintainer email addresses

Maybe something like:

our $maintainer_in_file_types = '\.(?:yaml|dts.?|rst)$';

Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] checkpatch: Don't warn on "orhapned" DT schema file

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2025 at 08:45:08AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2025-10-27 at 10:36 +0100, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > Currently checkpatch warns is the DT schema file is absent in MAINTAINERS.
> > However the DT schema files are self-contained in this sense and
> > have embedded information about maintainers of it. This is a requirement.
> > Hence, avoid checkpatch warning about it.
> > 
> > Tested-by: Akhilesh Patil <akhilesh@ee.iitb.ac.in>
> > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> 
> nackish.
> 
> Perhaps it'd be better to make checkpatch and get_maintainer have
> some list of filename suffixes that are expected to have embedded
> maintainer email addresses
> 
> Maybe something like:
> 
> our $maintainer_in_file_types = '\.(?:yaml|dts.?|rst)$';

Please, do that. I have no idea where all these Perl files do the necessary bits.
But currently we have a problem (false positives) with checkpatch, and some
maintainers dislike them.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] checkpatch: Don't warn on "orhapned" DT schema file

[Markus Elfring]

…
> Hence, avoid checkpatch warning about it.

Do you try to influence software evolution any further for “orphaned” information?

Regards,
Markus