Re: [PATCH v9 1/2] dt-bindings: edac: arm-dmc520.txt

[Rob Herring]

On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 5:39 PM Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 06:32:27AM -0800, Shiping Ji wrote:
> > This is the device tree bindings for new EDAC driver dmc520_edac.c.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Shiping Ji <shiping.linux@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Lei Wang <leiwang_git@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: James Morse <james.morse@xxxxxxx>
>
> So for this patch, v2 had Rui Zhao as an author:
>
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/BN7PR08MB5572B3388B2D7DC8F6C7F285AE4C0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> v3 got Lei as an author:
>
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CY1PR0401MB1244062C1738B09D6100F202860A0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> and now it is you.
>
> So when you send next time, think about who's going to be the author.
>
> > +     line numbers. The valid interrupt names are the followings:
>
> WARNING: 'followings' may be misspelled - perhaps 'following'?
> #51: FILE: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/edac/arm-dmc520.txt:10:
> +     line numbers. The valid interrupt names are the followings:
>
> Please integrate scripts/checkpatch.pl into your patch creation
> workflow. Some of the warnings/errors *actually* make sense.
>
> Also, this patch throws this other checkpatch warning:
>
> WARNING: DT bindings should be in DT schema format. See: Documentation/devicetree/writing-schema.rst
>
> but since Rob reviewed it, I'm going to assume checkpatch is wrong here.

Would be happy for a schema, but not going to ask for that on a v9.

Rob