[v2,1/3] dt-bindings: mfd: qcom,spmi-pmic: Add pm8916 vm-bms and lbc

  PM8916 (and probably some other similar pmics) have hardware blocks for
battery monitoring and charging. Add patterns for respecive nodes so the
devicetree for those blocks can be validated properly.

Signed-off-by: Nikita Travkin <nikita@trvn.ru>
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom,spmi-pmic.yaml | 6 ++++++
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
  

On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 11:20:32 +0500, Nikita Travkin wrote:
> PM8916 (and probably some other similar pmics) have hardware blocks for
> battery monitoring and charging. Add patterns for respecive nodes so the
> devicetree for those blocks can be validated properly.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Nikita Travkin <nikita@trvn.ru>
> ---
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom,spmi-pmic.yaml | 6 ++++++
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> 

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:
/builds/robherring/dt-review-ci/linux/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom,spmi-pmic.yaml:
Error in referenced schema matching $id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/power/supply/qcom,pm8916-bms-vm.yaml

doc reference errors (make refcheckdocs):

See https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/devicetree-bindings/patch/20231023-pm8916-dtsi-bms-lbc-v2-1-343e3dbf423e@trvn.ru

The base for the series is generally the latest rc1. A different dependency
should be noted in *this* patch.

If you already ran 'make dt_binding_check' and didn't see the above
error(s), then make sure 'yamllint' is installed and dt-schema is up to
date:

pip3 install dtschema --upgrade

Please check and re-submit after running the above command yourself. Note
that DT_SCHEMA_FILES can be set to your schema file to speed up checking
your schema. However, it must be unset to test all examples with your schema.
  

Rob Herring писал(а) 23.10.2023 22:40:
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 11:20:32 +0500, Nikita Travkin wrote:
>> PM8916 (and probably some other similar pmics) have hardware blocks for
>> battery monitoring and charging. Add patterns for respecive nodes so the
>> devicetree for those blocks can be validated properly.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Nikita Travkin <nikita@trvn.ru>
>> ---
>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom,spmi-pmic.yaml | 6 ++++++
>>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>
> 
> 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:
> /builds/robherring/dt-review-ci/linux/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom,spmi-pmic.yaml:
> Error in referenced schema matching $id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/power/supply/qcom,pm8916-bms-vm.yaml
> 
> doc reference errors (make refcheckdocs):
> 
> See https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/devicetree-bindings/patch/20231023-pm8916-dtsi-bms-lbc-v2-1-343e3dbf423e@trvn.ru
> 
> The base for the series is generally the latest rc1. A different dependency
> should be noted in *this* patch.
> 

Somehow I missed the memo and thought it tracks -next...

This patch depends on 7f590e3831 and 5cee843d56 in linux-next.git
They were applied in [1].

I'm wondering if the bot just bails out when the "depend" is present
or there is some more sophisticated logic to suggest the base to it?

Sorry for the inconvenience
Nikita

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230915-pm8916-bms-lbc-v3-0-f30881e951a0@trvn.ru/
  

On Tue, 24 Oct 2023, Nikita Travkin wrote:

> Rob Herring писал(а) 23.10.2023 22:40:
> > On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 11:20:32 +0500, Nikita Travkin wrote:
> >> PM8916 (and probably some other similar pmics) have hardware blocks for
> >> battery monitoring and charging. Add patterns for respecive nodes so the
> >> devicetree for those blocks can be validated properly.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Nikita Travkin <nikita@trvn.ru>
> >> ---
> >>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom,spmi-pmic.yaml | 6 ++++++
> >>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> >>
> > 
> > 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:
> > /builds/robherring/dt-review-ci/linux/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom,spmi-pmic.yaml:
> > Error in referenced schema matching $id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/power/supply/qcom,pm8916-bms-vm.yaml
> > 
> > doc reference errors (make refcheckdocs):
> > 
> > See https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/devicetree-bindings/patch/20231023-pm8916-dtsi-bms-lbc-v2-1-343e3dbf423e@trvn.ru
> > 
> > The base for the series is generally the latest rc1. A different dependency
> > should be noted in *this* patch.
> > 
> 
> Somehow I missed the memo and thought it tracks -next...
> 
> This patch depends on 7f590e3831 and 5cee843d56 in linux-next.git
> They were applied in [1].
> 
> I'm wondering if the bot just bails out when the "depend" is present
> or there is some more sophisticated logic to suggest the base to it?

So is this good to go, or not?
  

Lee Jones писал(а) 25.10.2023 17:21:
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2023, Nikita Travkin wrote:
> 
>> Rob Herring писал(а) 23.10.2023 22:40:
>> > On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 11:20:32 +0500, Nikita Travkin wrote:
>> >> PM8916 (and probably some other similar pmics) have hardware blocks for
>> >> battery monitoring and charging. Add patterns for respecive nodes so the
>> >> devicetree for those blocks can be validated properly.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Nikita Travkin <nikita@trvn.ru>
>> >> ---
>> >>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom,spmi-pmic.yaml | 6 ++++++
>> >>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>> >>
>> >
>> > 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:
>> > /builds/robherring/dt-review-ci/linux/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom,spmi-pmic.yaml:
>> > Error in referenced schema matching $id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/power/supply/qcom,pm8916-bms-vm.yaml
>> >
>> > doc reference errors (make refcheckdocs):
>> >
>> > See https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/devicetree-bindings/patch/20231023-pm8916-dtsi-bms-lbc-v2-1-343e3dbf423e@trvn.ru
>> >
>> > The base for the series is generally the latest rc1. A different dependency
>> > should be noted in *this* patch.
>> >
>>
>> Somehow I missed the memo and thought it tracks -next...
>>
>> This patch depends on 7f590e3831 and 5cee843d56 in linux-next.git
>> They were applied in [1].
>>
>> I'm wondering if the bot just bails out when the "depend" is present
>> or there is some more sophisticated logic to suggest the base to it?
> 
> So is this good to go, or not?

IMO this patch should be good, it passes the check on today's linux-next
on my end.

The only concern might be that if someone runs dt_binding_check on
for-mfd-next, it would skip that file with an error since there is no
dependency yet.

If this is critical to you, I was going to respin this after the -rc1,
but if you can pick the schema now, I can respin the remainder earlier.

Nikita
  

On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 11:20:32 +0500, Nikita Travkin wrote:
> PM8916 (and probably some other similar pmics) have hardware blocks for
> battery monitoring and charging. Add patterns for respecive nodes so the
> devicetree for those blocks can be validated properly.
> 
> 

Applied, thanks!

[1/3] dt-bindings: mfd: qcom,spmi-pmic: Add pm8916 vm-bms and lbc
      commit: e9aec86e211ee493081e8934b8c821d660b417ee

--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
  

On 25/10/2023 14:57, Nikita Travkin wrote:
> Lee Jones писал(а) 25.10.2023 17:21:
>> On Tue, 24 Oct 2023, Nikita Travkin wrote:
>>
>>> Rob Herring писал(а) 23.10.2023 22:40:
>>>> On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 11:20:32 +0500, Nikita Travkin wrote:
>>>>> PM8916 (and probably some other similar pmics) have hardware blocks for
>>>>> battery monitoring and charging. Add patterns for respecive nodes so the
>>>>> devicetree for those blocks can be validated properly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Nikita Travkin <nikita@trvn.ru>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom,spmi-pmic.yaml | 6 ++++++
>>>>>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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:
>>>> /builds/robherring/dt-review-ci/linux/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom,spmi-pmic.yaml:
>>>> Error in referenced schema matching $id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/power/supply/qcom,pm8916-bms-vm.yaml
>>>>
>>>> doc reference errors (make refcheckdocs):
>>>>
>>>> See https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/devicetree-bindings/patch/20231023-pm8916-dtsi-bms-lbc-v2-1-343e3dbf423e@trvn.ru
>>>>
>>>> The base for the series is generally the latest rc1. A different dependency
>>>> should be noted in *this* patch.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Somehow I missed the memo and thought it tracks -next...
>>>
>>> This patch depends on 7f590e3831 and 5cee843d56 in linux-next.git
>>> They were applied in [1].
>>>
>>> I'm wondering if the bot just bails out when the "depend" is present
>>> or there is some more sophisticated logic to suggest the base to it?
>>
>> So is this good to go, or not?
> 
> IMO this patch should be good, it passes the check on today's linux-next
> on my end.

It's not the next which matters, but maintainers tree.

> 
> The only concern might be that if someone runs dt_binding_check on
> for-mfd-next, it would skip that file with an error since there is no
> dependency yet.

Eee, so this has dependency on some other tree? Then no, it is not good
to go.



Best regards,
Krzysztof
  

On 25/10/2023 17:44, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 11:20:32 +0500, Nikita Travkin wrote:
>> PM8916 (and probably some other similar pmics) have hardware blocks for
>> battery monitoring and charging. Add patterns for respecive nodes so the
>> devicetree for those blocks can be validated properly.
>>
>>
> 
> Applied, thanks!
> 
> [1/3] dt-bindings: mfd: qcom,spmi-pmic: Add pm8916 vm-bms and lbc
>       commit: e9aec86e211ee493081e8934b8c821d660b417ee

Hi Lee,

It seems this patch depends on something not in your tree. This should
have been clearly explained in cover letter or this patch changelog, but
wasn't.

Please drop the patch.

Best regards,
Krzysztof
  

On Fri, 27 Oct 2023, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

> On 25/10/2023 17:44, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 11:20:32 +0500, Nikita Travkin wrote:
> >> PM8916 (and probably some other similar pmics) have hardware blocks for
> >> battery monitoring and charging. Add patterns for respecive nodes so the
> >> devicetree for those blocks can be validated properly.
> >>
> >>
> > 
> > Applied, thanks!
> > 
> > [1/3] dt-bindings: mfd: qcom,spmi-pmic: Add pm8916 vm-bms and lbc
> >       commit: e9aec86e211ee493081e8934b8c821d660b417ee
> 
> Hi Lee,
> 
> It seems this patch depends on something not in your tree. This should
> have been clearly explained in cover letter or this patch changelog, but
> wasn't.
> 
> Please drop the patch.

Done.
  

Lee Jones писал(а) 31.10.2023 12:54:
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2023, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> 
>> On 25/10/2023 17:44, Lee Jones wrote:
>> > On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 11:20:32 +0500, Nikita Travkin wrote:
>> >> PM8916 (and probably some other similar pmics) have hardware blocks for
>> >> battery monitoring and charging. Add patterns for respecive nodes so the
>> >> devicetree for those blocks can be validated properly.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > Applied, thanks!
>> >
>> > [1/3] dt-bindings: mfd: qcom,spmi-pmic: Add pm8916 vm-bms and lbc
>> >       commit: e9aec86e211ee493081e8934b8c821d660b417ee
>>
>> Hi Lee,
>>
>> It seems this patch depends on something not in your tree. This should
>> have been clearly explained in cover letter or this patch changelog, but
>> wasn't.
>>
>> Please drop the patch.
> 
> Done.

Hi, v6.7-rc1 now includes the dependencies for this bindings change,
could you pick it up again? Or maybe I should respin the series
with it included back?

Sorry for making this inconvenient for you...

Nikita
  

On 14/11/2023 06:24, Nikita Travkin wrote:
> Lee Jones писал(а) 31.10.2023 12:54:
>> On Fri, 27 Oct 2023, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>
>>> On 25/10/2023 17:44, Lee Jones wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 11:20:32 +0500, Nikita Travkin wrote:
>>>>> PM8916 (and probably some other similar pmics) have hardware blocks for
>>>>> battery monitoring and charging. Add patterns for respecive nodes so the
>>>>> devicetree for those blocks can be validated properly.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Applied, thanks!
>>>>
>>>> [1/3] dt-bindings: mfd: qcom,spmi-pmic: Add pm8916 vm-bms and lbc
>>>>       commit: e9aec86e211ee493081e8934b8c821d660b417ee
>>>
>>> Hi Lee,
>>>
>>> It seems this patch depends on something not in your tree. This should
>>> have been clearly explained in cover letter or this patch changelog, but
>>> wasn't.
>>>
>>> Please drop the patch.
>>
>> Done.
> 
> Hi, v6.7-rc1 now includes the dependencies for this bindings change,
> could you pick it up again? Or maybe I should respin the series
> with it included back?
> 
> Sorry for making this inconvenient for you...

The best is usually if you resend it, with short update under ---
changelog (or cover letter) explaining why.

Best regards,
Krzysztof