On 14/07/2023 14:50, Conor Dooley wrote:

Hey Krzysztof,

On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 10:47:24AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

quoted

Some SoC platforms require that commits must not bring any new
dtbs_check warnings.  Maintainers of such platforms usually have some
automation set, so any new warning will be spotted sooner or later.
Worst case: they run the tests themselves.  Document requirements for
such platforms, so contributors can expect their patches being dropped
or ignored, if they bring new warnings for existing boards.

Definitely a more scalable approach than your previous version!

quoted

Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <redacted>
---
 .../process/maintainer-handbooks.rst          |  1 +
 .../process/maintainer-soc-clean-dts.rst      | 22 +++++++++++++++++++
 MAINTAINERS                                   |  2 +-
 3 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/process/maintainer-soc-clean-dts.rst

diff --git a/Documentation/process/maintainer-handbooks.rst b/Documentation/process/maintainer-handbooks.rst
index 9992bfd7eaa3..976391cec528 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/maintainer-handbooks.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/maintainer-handbooks.rst

@@ -17,5 +17,6 @@ Contents:
 
    maintainer-netdev
    maintainer-soc
+   maintainer-soc-clean-dts
    maintainer-tip
    maintainer-kvm-x86

diff --git a/Documentation/process/maintainer-soc-clean-dts.rst b/Documentation/process/maintainer-soc-clean-dts.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..87feeb5543ff
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/process/maintainer-soc-clean-dts.rst

@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+
+=============================
+SoC Platforms with Strict DTS

I don't think that this title makes much sense, it feels like it has
been truncated. Perhaps add "Requirements" to the end?

OK, but maybe better then

SoC Platforms with DTS Compliance Requirements
?

quoted

+=============================
+
+Overview
+--------
+
+SoC platforms or subarchitectures follow all the rules from

s/follow/should follow/?

Ack

quoted

+Documentation/process/maintainer-soc.rst.  However platforms referencing this
+document impose additional requirements listed below.
+
+Strict DTS DT schema compliance
+-------------------------------

Should there be a blank line here to match the other section headings?

Ack

Also, to match the title case you used elsewhere, "Schema Compliance"?

Ack

quoted

+None of the changes to the SoC platform Devicetree sources (DTS files) can
+bring new ``make dtbs_check W=1`` warnings.  The platform maintainers have

Nitpickery again, but perhaps the first sentence here would read better as
"No changes to the SoC platform Devicetree sources (DTS files) should
introduce new ``make dtbs_check W=1`` warnings."?

Ack

quoted

+automation in place which should point out any new warnings.
+
+If a commit introducing new warning gets accepted somehow, the resulting issues
+shall be fixed in reasonable time (e.g. within one release) or the commit
+reverted.

It is loosely related, but I was wondering if we should also try to push
people that change the platform's bindings to update the DTS also, so
that binding changes do not introduce W=1 complaints?

Makes sense, we could add such rule to Devicetree maintainer profile.
Anyway enforcing it relies on Rob's bot reporting the warnings, which
seems silent recently.

For many bindings the platform entry in MAINTAINERS does not cover them,
but things like the arm64 Apple stuff mention them specifically & others
will get coverage due to regexes.

Anyway, nitpickery aside I like this approach.
Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>

Best regards,
Krzysztof


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel