Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] QCM2290 LMH

[Nícolas F. R. A. Prado]

On Sat, Mar 09, 2024 at 02:15:01PM +0100, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> Wire up LMH on QCM2290 and fix a bad bug while at it.
> 
> P1-2 for thermal, P3 for qcom
> 
> Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Changes in v2:
> - Pick up tags
> - Fix a couple typos in commit messages
> - Drop stray msm8998 binding addition
> - Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240308-topic-rb1_lmh-v1-0-50c60ffe1130@xxxxxxxxxx
> 
> ---
> Konrad Dybcio (2):
>       dt-bindings: thermal: lmh: Add QCM2290 compatible
>       thermal: qcom: lmh: Check for SCM availability at probe
> 
> Loic Poulain (1):
>       arm64: dts: qcom: qcm2290: Add LMH node
> 
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/qcom-lmh.yaml | 12 ++++++++----
>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qcm2290.dtsi                   | 14 +++++++++++++-
>  drivers/thermal/qcom/lmh.c                              |  3 +++
>  3 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

Hi,

I've started tracking the results of 'make dtbs_check' on linux-next, and I've
noticed that on today's next, next-20240320, there's a new warning coming from
this. The reason is that the DT change has landed, but the binding has not,
since it goes through a separate tree. I thought the binding was supposed to
always land before the driver and DT that make use of it, but looking through
the dt-binding documentation pages I couldn't find anything confirming or
denying that.

I expect this to happen again in the future, which is why I'm reaching out to
understand better how to deal with this kind of situation.

Thanks,
Nícolas

> ---
> base-commit: 8ffc8b1bbd505e27e2c8439d326b6059c906c9dd
> change-id: 20240308-topic-rb1_lmh-1e0f440c392a
> 
> Best regards,
> -- 
> Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxx>
>