Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] dt-bindings: spi: add loongson spi | From | zhuyinbo <> | Date | Thu, 30 Mar 2023 11:00:42 +0800 |
| |
在 2023/3/29 下午7:37, Krzysztof Kozlowski 写道: > On 29/03/2023 12:39, zhuyinbo wrote: >> >> >> 在 2023/3/28 下午8:57, Rob Herring 写道: >>> >>> On Tue, 28 Mar 2023 19:22:09 +0800, Yinbo Zhu wrote: >>>> Add the Loongson platform spi binding with DT schema format using >>>> json-schema. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Yinbo Zhu <zhuyinbo@loongson.cn> >>>> --- >>>> .../bindings/spi/loongson,ls-spi.yaml | 43 +++++++++++++++++++ >>>> MAINTAINERS | 6 +++ >>>> 2 files changed, 49 insertions(+) >>>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/loongson,ls-spi.yaml >>>> >>> >>> My bot found errors running 'make DT_CHECKER_FLAGS=-m dt_binding_check' >>> on your patch (DT_CHECKER_FLAGS is new in v5.13): >>> >>> yamllint warnings/errors: >>> >>> dtschema/dtc warnings/errors: >>> Error: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/loongson,ls-spi.example.dts:22.28-29 syntax error >>> FATAL ERROR: Unable to parse input tree >>> make[1]: *** [scripts/Makefile.lib:419: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/loongson,ls-spi.example.dtb] Error 1 >>> make[1]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs.... >>> make: *** [Makefile:1512: dt_binding_check] Error 2 >>> >>> doc reference errors (make refcheckdocs): >>> >>> See https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/devicetree-bindings/patch/20230328112210.23089-2-zhuyinbo@loongson.cn >>> >>> The base for the series is generally the latest rc1. A different dependency >>> should be noted in *this* patch. >> Hi Rob, >> >> I'm sorry, actually, I don't know what the specific operation I should >> do when I received the check warning >> from your bot. Does it means that I should add dependency note into this >> patch's changelog ? > > Yes, this is explicitly mentioned in the sentence you quoted. okay, I got it, thanks! > >> or something else, I really >> don't know. Actually, I'm always bothered by these things that how to >> resolve the dependency issue for two >> dependent patches that do not belong to the same series. > > Another approach, as Rob suggested last time, would be to just get rid > of the dependency and open-code the clock IDs... Thank you very much for your suggestion, I will open-code the clock IDs and fix that checkpatch issue then resend this series patch. > > Best regards, > Krzysztof >
| |