Re: [PATCH 2/3] Documentation/process: maintainer-soc: add clean platforms profile
From: Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>
Date: 2023-07-14 12:51:13
Also in:
linux-riscv
Hey Krzysztof, On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 10:47:24AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
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 hunk ↗ jump to hunk
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.rstdiff --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-x86diff --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?
+============================= + +Overview +-------- + +SoC platforms or subarchitectures follow all the rules from
s/follow/should follow/?
+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? Also, to match the title case you used elsewhere, "Schema Compliance"?
+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."?
+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? 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> Thanks, Conor.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS index b61289fa7891..7405fb6e38c3 100644 --- a/MAINTAINERS +++ b/MAINTAINERS@@ -1561,7 +1561,7 @@ S: Maintained P: Documentation/process/maintainer-soc.rst C: irc://irc.libera.chat/armlinux T: git git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/soc/soc.git -F: Documentation/process/maintainer-soc.rst +F: Documentation/process/maintainer-soc*.rst F: arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile F: arch/arm64/boot/dts/Makefile-- 2.34.1