There is a warning on dtbs check for sdm845, amongst other platforms,
about the reg-names being unevaluated. Fix that by adding reg-names to
the clocks and reg properties check for such platforms.
Fixes: 462c5c0aa798 ("dt-bindings: ufs: qcom,ufs: convert to dtschema")
Signed-off-by: Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@linaro.org>
---
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/qcom,ufs.yaml | 4 ++++
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/qcom,ufs.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/qcom,ufs.yaml
index 0209713d1f88..894b57117314 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/qcom,ufs.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/qcom,ufs.yaml
@@ -166,6 +166,10 @@ allOf:
reg:
minItems: 2
maxItems: 2
+ reg-names:
+ items:
+ - const: std
+ - const: ice
- if:
properties:
--
2.34.1On 23/06/2023 13:30, Abel Vesa wrote:
> There is a warning on dtbs check for sdm845, amongst other platforms,
> about the reg-names being unevaluated. Fix that by adding reg-names to
> the clocks and reg properties check for such platforms.
>
> Fixes: 462c5c0aa798 ("dt-bindings: ufs: qcom,ufs: convert to dtschema")
> Signed-off-by: Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@linaro.org>
> ---
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/qcom,ufs.yaml | 4 ++++
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/qcom,ufs.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/qcom,ufs.yaml
> index 0209713d1f88..894b57117314 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/qcom,ufs.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/qcom,ufs.yaml
> @@ -166,6 +166,10 @@ allOf:
> reg:
> minItems: 2
> maxItems: 2
> + reg-names:
> + items:
> + - const: std
> + - const: ice
reg-names looks like a new property, so it should be defined in
top-level and just constrained per-variant.
Also there was similar approach:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20221209-dt-binding-ufs-v2-2-dc7a04699579@fairphone.com/
but I guess no resends and it can be superseded.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
On Fri Jun 23, 2023 at 2:31 PM CEST, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 23/06/2023 13:30, Abel Vesa wrote:
> > There is a warning on dtbs check for sdm845, amongst other platforms,
> > about the reg-names being unevaluated. Fix that by adding reg-names to
> > the clocks and reg properties check for such platforms.
> >
> > Fixes: 462c5c0aa798 ("dt-bindings: ufs: qcom,ufs: convert to dtschema")
> > Signed-off-by: Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@linaro.org>
> > ---
> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/qcom,ufs.yaml | 4 ++++
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/qcom,ufs.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/qcom,ufs.yaml
> > index 0209713d1f88..894b57117314 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/qcom,ufs.yaml
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/qcom,ufs.yaml
> > @@ -166,6 +166,10 @@ allOf:
> > reg:
> > minItems: 2
> > maxItems: 2
> > + reg-names:
> > + items:
> > + - const: std
> > + - const: ice
>
> reg-names looks like a new property, so it should be defined in
> top-level and just constrained per-variant.
>
> Also there was similar approach:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20221209-dt-binding-ufs-v2-2-dc7a04699579@fairphone.com/
>
> but I guess no resends and it can be superseded.
Right, the patches got reviews but was never applied... I really need to
find a strategy to keep track of sent patches until they're applied with
my work mailbox, it's not the first time that a patch has gotten
forgotten.
With my private mailbox I just have a different folder for patches that
have been sent which I archive once they're applied, but with work GMail
I don't see how I can easily replicate this since it's also not grouping
threads properly.
Also patch 4/5 in this series has an equivalent from me:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20221209-dt-binding-ufs-v2-3-dc7a04699579@fairphone.com/
^ this might also be preferable since I guess it doesn't break
dt_binding_check?
Regards
Luca
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
On Fri, 2023-06-23 at 14:38 +0200, Luca Weiss wrote: > With my private mailbox I just have a different folder for patches > that have been sent which I archive once they're applied, but with > work GMail I don't see how I can easily replicate this since it's > also not grouping threads properly. I have something similar, but instead of multiple folders, I use imap labels to achieve the same thing (and then evolution search folders to sort out the labels). I believe GMail has some primitive labelling system that actually works (unlike exchange), so you might be able to get a scheme like that to work. For my mobile phone, which doesn't have the sophisticated search folders evolution does, I use dovecot virtual folders to achieve the same effect. I'm afraid I don't think GMail has any equivalent of this. James
On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 02:38:04PM +0200, Luca Weiss wrote:
> On Fri Jun 23, 2023 at 2:31 PM CEST, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On 23/06/2023 13:30, Abel Vesa wrote:
> > > There is a warning on dtbs check for sdm845, amongst other platforms,
> > > about the reg-names being unevaluated. Fix that by adding reg-names to
> > > the clocks and reg properties check for such platforms.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 462c5c0aa798 ("dt-bindings: ufs: qcom,ufs: convert to dtschema")
> > > Signed-off-by: Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@linaro.org>
> > > ---
> > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/qcom,ufs.yaml | 4 ++++
> > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/qcom,ufs.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/qcom,ufs.yaml
> > > index 0209713d1f88..894b57117314 100644
> > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/qcom,ufs.yaml
> > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/qcom,ufs.yaml
> > > @@ -166,6 +166,10 @@ allOf:
> > > reg:
> > > minItems: 2
> > > maxItems: 2
> > > + reg-names:
> > > + items:
> > > + - const: std
> > > + - const: ice
> >
> > reg-names looks like a new property, so it should be defined in
> > top-level and just constrained per-variant.
> >
> > Also there was similar approach:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20221209-dt-binding-ufs-v2-2-dc7a04699579@fairphone.com/
> >
> > but I guess no resends and it can be superseded.
>
> Right, the patches got reviews but was never applied... I really need to
> find a strategy to keep track of sent patches until they're applied with
> my work mailbox, it's not the first time that a patch has gotten
> forgotten.
There was an error reported on the above series. Why would it be
applied?
That said, I'm not sure SCSI maintainers consistently apply DT only
patch series.
> With my private mailbox I just have a different folder for patches that
> have been sent which I archive once they're applied, but with work GMail
> I don't see how I can easily replicate this since it's also not grouping
> threads properly.
Yeah, GMail sucks for that. I use 'lei' to get all my patches and
replies to them (though its caching will miss replies). Then I delete
them from the mbox when they are applied or otherwise finished. lei
updates won't re-add them to the mbox.
Rob
Hi Rob,
On Fri Jun 23, 2023 at 11:17 PM CEST, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 02:38:04PM +0200, Luca Weiss wrote:
> > On Fri Jun 23, 2023 at 2:31 PM CEST, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > On 23/06/2023 13:30, Abel Vesa wrote:
> > > > There is a warning on dtbs check for sdm845, amongst other platforms,
> > > > about the reg-names being unevaluated. Fix that by adding reg-names to
> > > > the clocks and reg properties check for such platforms.
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: 462c5c0aa798 ("dt-bindings: ufs: qcom,ufs: convert to dtschema")
> > > > Signed-off-by: Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@linaro.org>
> > > > ---
> > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/qcom,ufs.yaml | 4 ++++
> > > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/qcom,ufs.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/qcom,ufs.yaml
> > > > index 0209713d1f88..894b57117314 100644
> > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/qcom,ufs.yaml
> > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/qcom,ufs.yaml
> > > > @@ -166,6 +166,10 @@ allOf:
> > > > reg:
> > > > minItems: 2
> > > > maxItems: 2
> > > > + reg-names:
> > > > + items:
> > > > + - const: std
> > > > + - const: ice
> > >
> > > reg-names looks like a new property, so it should be defined in
> > > top-level and just constrained per-variant.
> > >
> > > Also there was similar approach:
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20221209-dt-binding-ufs-v2-2-dc7a04699579@fairphone.com/
> > >
> > > but I guess no resends and it can be superseded.
> >
> > Right, the patches got reviews but was never applied... I really need to
> > find a strategy to keep track of sent patches until they're applied with
> > my work mailbox, it's not the first time that a patch has gotten
> > forgotten.
>
> There was an error reported on the above series. Why would it be
> applied?
The error report at [0] complains about reg-names but I'm quite sure
that patch 2/3 resolves this error. Does your bot only apply one patch
at a time and run the check or apply all of them and then run it? It's
been a while but I'm fairly sure I ran all of the checks before sending
since I also documented some other patches in the cover letter there.
[0] https://lore.kernel.org/all/167241769341.1925758.17856681634949446114.robh@kernel.org/
>
> That said, I'm not sure SCSI maintainers consistently apply DT only
> patch series.
>
> > With my private mailbox I just have a different folder for patches that
> > have been sent which I archive once they're applied, but with work GMail
> > I don't see how I can easily replicate this since it's also not grouping
> > threads properly.
>
> Yeah, GMail sucks for that. I use 'lei' to get all my patches and
> replies to them (though its caching will miss replies). Then I delete
> them from the mbox when they are applied or otherwise finished. lei
> updates won't re-add them to the mbox.
I'll try to figure something out with GMail.. Perhaps just adding a
label "not yet applied" which I manually remove once it's applied would
be sufficient.
Regards
Luca
>
> Rob
On 26/06/2023 08:38, Luca Weiss wrote: >>>> but I guess no resends and it can be superseded. >>> >>> Right, the patches got reviews but was never applied... I really need to >>> find a strategy to keep track of sent patches until they're applied with >>> my work mailbox, it's not the first time that a patch has gotten >>> forgotten. >> >> There was an error reported on the above series. Why would it be >> applied? > > The error report at [0] complains about reg-names but I'm quite sure > that patch 2/3 resolves this error. Does your bot only apply one patch > at a time and run the check or apply all of them and then run it? It's > been a while but I'm fairly sure I ran all of the checks before sending > since I also documented some other patches in the cover letter there. You did it in cover letter, not in the patch, so there is no dependency for bots recorded. > > [0] https://lore.kernel.org/all/167241769341.1925758.17856681634949446114.robh@kernel.org/ Your patch 2/3 could not be applied to any tree. 3/3 applied but without previous one caused warnings. Best regards, Krzysztof
On Mon Jun 26, 2023 at 9:41 AM CEST, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 26/06/2023 08:38, Luca Weiss wrote: > >>>> but I guess no resends and it can be superseded. > >>> > >>> Right, the patches got reviews but was never applied... I really need to > >>> find a strategy to keep track of sent patches until they're applied with > >>> my work mailbox, it's not the first time that a patch has gotten > >>> forgotten. > >> > >> There was an error reported on the above series. Why would it be > >> applied? > > > > The error report at [0] complains about reg-names but I'm quite sure > > that patch 2/3 resolves this error. Does your bot only apply one patch > > at a time and run the check or apply all of them and then run it? It's > > been a while but I'm fairly sure I ran all of the checks before sending > > since I also documented some other patches in the cover letter there. > > You did it in cover letter, not in the patch, so there is no dependency > for bots recorded. I'm not aware how to put extra comments into a patch in a series with b4, at least last time I checked I don't think it was possible? But I also thought the cover letter was exactly there for giving some background of the series and documenting any dependencies on other patches. > > > > > [0] https://lore.kernel.org/all/167241769341.1925758.17856681634949446114.robh@kernel.org/ > > Your patch 2/3 could not be applied to any tree. 3/3 applied but without > previous one caused warnings. Anyways, just resent the series as v4, maybe this time it can get picked up... Should have enough reviews by now :) Regards Luca > > > > > Best regards, > Krzysztof
On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 10:19:09AM +0200, Luca Weiss wrote: > On Mon Jun 26, 2023 at 9:41 AM CEST, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > On 26/06/2023 08:38, Luca Weiss wrote: > > >>>> but I guess no resends and it can be superseded. > > >>> > > >>> Right, the patches got reviews but was never applied... I really need to > > >>> find a strategy to keep track of sent patches until they're applied with > > >>> my work mailbox, it's not the first time that a patch has gotten > > >>> forgotten. > > >> > > >> There was an error reported on the above series. Why would it be > > >> applied? > > > > > > The error report at [0] complains about reg-names but I'm quite sure > > > that patch 2/3 resolves this error. Does your bot only apply one patch > > > at a time and run the check or apply all of them and then run it? It's > > > been a while but I'm fairly sure I ran all of the checks before sending > > > since I also documented some other patches in the cover letter there. > > > > You did it in cover letter, not in the patch, so there is no dependency > > for bots recorded. > > I'm not aware how to put extra comments into a patch in a series with > b4, at least last time I checked I don't think it was possible? But I > also thought the cover letter was exactly there for giving some > background of the series and documenting any dependencies on other > patches. I just put a '---' line and comments after that in the commit messages. That works fine unless your git branch is going upstream directly (i.e. via a pull request). Even when I apply my own patches, I get them from lore and apply so the comments are dropped. Rob
On Tue Jun 27, 2023 at 5:18 PM CEST, Rob Herring wrote: > On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 10:19:09AM +0200, Luca Weiss wrote: > > On Mon Jun 26, 2023 at 9:41 AM CEST, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > > On 26/06/2023 08:38, Luca Weiss wrote: > > > >>>> but I guess no resends and it can be superseded. > > > >>> > > > >>> Right, the patches got reviews but was never applied... I really need to > > > >>> find a strategy to keep track of sent patches until they're applied with > > > >>> my work mailbox, it's not the first time that a patch has gotten > > > >>> forgotten. > > > >> > > > >> There was an error reported on the above series. Why would it be > > > >> applied? > > > > > > > > The error report at [0] complains about reg-names but I'm quite sure > > > > that patch 2/3 resolves this error. Does your bot only apply one patch > > > > at a time and run the check or apply all of them and then run it? It's > > > > been a while but I'm fairly sure I ran all of the checks before sending > > > > since I also documented some other patches in the cover letter there. > > > > > > You did it in cover letter, not in the patch, so there is no dependency > > > for bots recorded. > > > > I'm not aware how to put extra comments into a patch in a series with > > b4, at least last time I checked I don't think it was possible? But I > > also thought the cover letter was exactly there for giving some > > background of the series and documenting any dependencies on other > > patches. > > I just put a '---' line and comments after that in the commit messages. > That works fine unless your git branch is going upstream directly (i.e. > via a pull request). Even when I apply my own patches, I get them from > lore and apply so the comments are dropped. Ah, didn't know this was possible/supported. In the past with git send-email directly I'd edit the patch file and add some text under the "---" manually but wasn't aware you can put it directly in the commit message. But I guess if it produces the same output either way it makes sense. I won't have a problem with pull requests since I'm just a normal patch submitter ;) Thanks for the advice! Regards Luca > > Rob
On 23/06/2023 23:17, Rob Herring wrote: >> With my private mailbox I just have a different folder for patches that >> have been sent which I archive once they're applied, but with work GMail >> I don't see how I can easily replicate this since it's also not grouping >> threads properly. > > Yeah, GMail sucks for that. I use 'lei' to get all my patches and > replies to them (though its caching will miss replies). Then I delete > them from the mbox when they are applied or otherwise finished. lei > updates won't re-add them to the mbox. That's interesting approach. What's your lei search query for getting your patches? "f:rob" would get all your threads you participated in. Best regards, Krzysztof
On Sat, Jun 24, 2023 at 09:49:12AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 23/06/2023 23:17, Rob Herring wrote:
> >> With my private mailbox I just have a different folder for patches that
> >> have been sent which I archive once they're applied, but with work GMail
> >> I don't see how I can easily replicate this since it's also not grouping
> >> threads properly.
> >
> > Yeah, GMail sucks for that. I use 'lei' to get all my patches and
> > replies to them (though its caching will miss replies). Then I delete
> > them from the mbox when they are applied or otherwise finished. lei
> > updates won't re-add them to the mbox.
>
> That's interesting approach. What's your lei search query for getting
> your patches? "f:rob" would get all your threads you participated in.
This is what I have:
q = (dfn:drivers OR dfn:sound OR dfn:tools OR dfn:kernel OR \
dfn:arch OR dfn:Documentation OR dfn:include OR dfn:scripts) AND \
f:robh@kernel.org AND rt:3.month.ago..
Really, I'd like a 'is a patch' flag or 'dfn:*' or 'dfn:/' here, but I
didn't convince the lei maintainer such a thing is needed. Sigh.
Also, you have to disable lei's caching with the --remote-fudge-time
option because it will miss replies to the matching query. Also reported
and not fixed...
Rob
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.