Re: [PATCH 3/3] dt-bindings: arm: msm: Convert kpss-gcc driver Documentation to yaml

[Rob Herring]

On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 10:45:09PM +0200, Ansuel Smith wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 10:43:21PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On 29/04/2022 17:57, Ansuel Smith wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 10:53:16AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > >> On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 14:17:39 +0200, Ansuel Smith wrote:
> > >>> Convert kpss-gcc driver Documentation to yaml.
> > >>>
> > >>> Signed-off-by: Ansuel Smith <ansuelsmth@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >>> ---
> > >>>  .../bindings/arm/msm/qcom,kpss-gcc.txt        | 44 -------------
> > >>>  .../bindings/arm/msm/qcom,kpss-gcc.yaml       | 63 +++++++++++++++++++
> > >>>  2 files changed, 63 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)
> > >>>  delete mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/msm/qcom,kpss-gcc.txt
> > >>>  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/msm/qcom,kpss-gcc.yaml
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> 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/linux-dt-review/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/msm/qcom,kpss-gcc.yaml: properties: '#clock-cells' is a dependency of 'clock-output-names'
> > > 
> > 
> > The patches were previously sent (even as v6) and somehow the history,
> > changelog and references disappeared...
> > 
> 
> Mhh with split how this should be handled? Putting the relevant changes
> in the cover letter?
> 
> > > Erm how to fix this? I can't do a 1:1 conversion if the source was
> > > wrong and also have no bot warning.
> > > Or I should just push an additional patch to fix this error after the
> > > conversion?
> > 
> > Didn't we agree that original bindings were not in good shape? Yet the
> > questions raised with your v6 remain actually not answered, till the bot
> > complains.
> > 
> > Please do not send the bindings which do not pass dt_binding_check.
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > Krzysztof
> 
> In v6 the last mail were with the idea of sending separate series with
> minimal changes and it was mention that it was a good idea to send only
> conversion and then send the changes with the conversion series.
> 
> Finally got the message. I should NEVER send patch with warning from
> dt_binding_check.

It's like sending code changes that don't compile...

But I wouldn't say NEVER. If you have a warning that you think is wrong 
or don't know how to fix, then send it and say that in the patch.

Rob