[PATCH V1] dt-bindings: remoteproc: k3-dsp: Update example to remove board specific

The example includes a board-specific compatible property, but developers
need to add the board name each time when a new board is added to the K3
J721E SoC list. This grows the compatible string-list. So, drop the
board-specific compatible string and add cbass_main as a parent node to
avoid parent node and child node address-cells mismatch error.

Signed-off-by: Sinthu Raja <redacted>
---
Changes in V1:
Fixed alignment issue which caused the yaml parse error.

 .../devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-dsp-rproc.yaml     | 6 ++----
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-dsp-rproc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-dsp-rproc.yaml
index 6070456a7b67..e44a9397b8db 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-dsp-rproc.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-dsp-rproc.yaml

@@ -132,10 +132,8 @@ required:
 unevaluatedProperties: false
 
 examples:
-  - |
-    / {
-        model = "Texas Instruments K3 J721E SoC";
-        compatible = "ti,j721e";
+  - |+
+    cbass_main {
         #address-cells = <2>;
         #size-cells = <2>;
 

-- 
2.31.1

On 13:10-20210818, Sinthu Raja wrote:

The example includes a board-specific compatible property, but developers
need to add the board name each time when a new board is added to the K3
J721E SoC list. This grows the compatible string-list. So, drop the
board-specific compatible string and add cbass_main as a parent node to

What is cbass_main node?

avoid parent node and child node address-cells mismatch error.

I think you mean that since the existing example uses address cells and
size for 64bit addresses and sizes, you are introducing a bus segment
indicative of the same capability to reduce the churn in the binding.
Correct? if so, rephrase accordingly.

Signed-off-by: Sinthu Raja <redacted>

Your From: and Signed-off-by email IDs do not match. You might want to
re-read the contribution guidelines documentation in linux kernel.

This should be also tagged with Fixes: since it is fixing a pre-existing
binding that slipped through our review.

NOTE: at least my test.. (I think rob's system will still complain)
base: next-20210818
b4 am -o  ~/tmp -3 -g -t -l -c -s --no-cover 20210818074030.1877-1-sinthu.raja@ti.com
	https://pastebin.ubuntu.com/p/VxzzvzpY9N/

I mean, both these can be caught with checkpatch and standard checks, so
did you see that in your basic vett prior to posting?

---
Changes in V1:
Fixed alignment issue which caused the yaml parse error.

Some 101 comments:

A) when you post a new revision, post a url like previous versions in
   diffstat - :
   https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/20210817152005.21575-1-sinthu.raja@ti.com/
B) When you are sending the very first patch, it is already V1 and
   does'nt need to be explicitly stated. this update to your original
   post is a V2, so, when you update this patch to address the review
   comments, the next revision will be V3.

minor detail: you are also doing one additional change -> you are now using
the standard example template and adding the example node instead of a
complete example node as well here. Personally, I do prefer this
approach rather than the previous example.

+    cbass_main {
         #address-cells = <2>;
         #size-cells = <2>;

Usually, when one sees problems like these, they tend to be
symptomatic, and we need to look if there is a similar pattern of
error else where in the codebase.

Sigh, in this case, I see the same problem in:
a) Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml
b) Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwlock/ti,omap-hwspinlock.yaml

Hari, Sinthu,
Can we fix these in a series that belongs to each maintainer?

 
-- 
2.31.1

-- 
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
Key (0xDDB5849D1736249D) / Fingerprint: F8A2 8693 54EB 8232 17A3  1A34 DDB5 849D 1736 249D

On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 01:10:30PM +0530, Sinthu Raja wrote:

The example includes a board-specific compatible property, but developers
need to add the board name each time when a new board is added to the K3
J721E SoC list. This grows the compatible string-list. So, drop the
board-specific compatible string and add cbass_main as a parent node to
avoid parent node and child node address-cells mismatch error.

Signed-off-by: Sinthu Raja <redacted>

The author and S-o-b emails don't match.

With Regards

Sinthu Raja


On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 6:35 PM Nishanth Menon [off-list ref] wrote:

On 13:10-20210818, Sinthu Raja wrote:

quoted

The example includes a board-specific compatible property, but developers
need to add the board name each time when a new board is added to the K3
J721E SoC list. This grows the compatible string-list. So, drop the
board-specific compatible string and add cbass_main as a parent node to

What is cbass_main node?

quoted

avoid parent node and child node address-cells mismatch error.

I think you mean that since the existing example uses address cells and
size for 64bit addresses and sizes, you are introducing a bus segment
indicative of the same capability to reduce the churn in the binding.
Correct? if so, rephrase accordingly.

quoted

Signed-off-by: Sinthu Raja <redacted>

Your From: and Signed-off-by email IDs do not match. You might want to
re-read the contribution guidelines documentation in linux kernel.

This should be also tagged with Fixes: since it is fixing a pre-existing
binding that slipped through our review.

Hi Nishanth,
May I know to which commit I have to tag the Fixes. If you are
referring to the below review, then the patch is not merged and how
shall we add the Fixes tag for this patch.
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-arm-kernel/patch/20210607093314.23909-2-sinthu.raja@ti.com/

NOTE: at least my test.. (I think rob's system will still complain)
base: next-20210818
b4 am -o  ~/tmp -3 -g -t -l -c -s --no-cover 20210818074030.1877-1-sinthu.raja@ti.com
        https://pastebin.ubuntu.com/p/VxzzvzpY9N/

I mean, both these can be caught with checkpatch and standard checks, so
did you see that in your basic vett prior to posting?

It didn't catch in my basic patch verification. But the generated
patch does have the From header, but sometimes the From header is
getting truncated when submitting for review. Still working on that to
fix it. (using Gmail client to submitting the patch)

With Regards
Sinthu Raja

quoted

---
Changes in V1:
Fixed alignment issue which caused the yaml parse error.

Some 101 comments:

A) when you post a new revision, post a url like previous versions in
   diffstat - :
   https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/20210817152005.21575-1-sinthu.raja@ti.com/
B) When you are sending the very first patch, it is already V1 and
   does'nt need to be explicitly stated. this update to your original
   post is a V2, so, when you update this patch to address the review
   comments, the next revision will be V3.

quoted

 .../devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-dsp-rproc.yaml     | 6 ++----
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-dsp-rproc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-dsp-rproc.yaml
index 6070456a7b67..e44a9397b8db 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-dsp-rproc.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-dsp-rproc.yaml

@@ -132,10 +132,8 @@ required:
 unevaluatedProperties: false

 examples:
-  - |
-    / {
-        model = "Texas Instruments K3 J721E SoC";
-        compatible = "ti,j721e";
+  - |+

minor detail: you are also doing one additional change -> you are now using
the standard example template and adding the example node instead of a
complete example node as well here. Personally, I do prefer this
approach rather than the previous example.

quoted

+    cbass_main {
         #address-cells = <2>;
         #size-cells = <2>;

Usually, when one sees problems like these, they tend to be
symptomatic, and we need to look if there is a similar pattern of
error else where in the codebase.

Sigh, in this case, I see the same problem in:
a) Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml
b) Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwlock/ti,omap-hwspinlock.yaml

Hari, Sinthu,
Can we fix these in a series that belongs to each maintainer?

quoted

--
2.31.1

--
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
Key (0xDDB5849D1736249D) / Fingerprint: F8A2 8693 54EB 8232 17A3  1A34 DDB5 849D 1736 249D

On 11:56-20210820, Sinthu Raja M wrote:
[...]

May I know to which commit I have to tag the Fixes. If you are

git blame Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-dsp-rproc.yaml ?

Look at the commit that introduced the original code that you are
fixing. In this case, 2a2180206ab62 perhaps?

[...]

It didn't catch in my basic patch verification. But the generated
patch does have the From header, but sometimes the From header is
getting truncated when submitting for review. Still working on that to
fix it. (using Gmail client to submitting the patch)

https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.11/process/email-clients.html

"Gmail (Web GUI)

Does not work for sending patches.
"


-- 
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
Key (0xDDB5849D1736249D) / Fingerprint: F8A2 8693 54EB 8232 17A3  1A34 DDB5 849D 1736 249D