lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Mar]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 1/2] dt-bindings: spi: add loongson spi
From
Date


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
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-03-30 05:01    [W:0.052 / U:0.824 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site