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

Rob Herring
2025-02-26T15:29:12Z

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.

Rob