| Message ID | 20230531-rpm-rproc-v1-6-e0a3b6de1f14@gerhold.net |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Add dedicated device tree node for RPM processor/subsystem | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| robh/checkpatch | success | |
| robh/patch-applied | success | |
| robh/dt-meta-schema | fail | build log |
On Mon, 05 Jun 2023 09:08:22 +0200, Stephan Gerhold wrote: > Use the new top-level rpm-proc node instead of having a dummy top-level > /smd node that only contains the RPM but not other remote processors. > > Signed-off-by: Stephan Gerhold <stephan@gerhold.net> > --- > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,smd-rpm.yaml | 6 +++--- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > 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: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,smd-rpm.example.dtb: /example-0/remoteproc-rpm: failed to match any schema with compatible: ['qcom,msm8916-rpm-proc', 'qcom,rpm-proc'] doc reference errors (make refcheckdocs): See https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/devicetree-bindings/patch/20230531-rpm-rproc-v1-6-e0a3b6de1f14@gerhold.net 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.
On Mon, Jun 05, 2023 at 02:33:58AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > On Mon, 05 Jun 2023 09:08:22 +0200, Stephan Gerhold wrote: > > Use the new top-level rpm-proc node instead of having a dummy top-level > > /smd node that only contains the RPM but not other remote processors. > > > > Signed-off-by: Stephan Gerhold <stephan@gerhold.net> > > --- > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,smd-rpm.yaml | 6 +++--- > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > 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: > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,smd-rpm.example.dtb: /example-0/remoteproc-rpm: failed to match any schema with compatible: ['qcom,msm8916-rpm-proc', 'qcom,rpm-proc'] > Huh? The schema that matches this compatible is in the previous patch. :) Perhaps this error is related to the dt_binding_check problem on the patch before (which is caused by applying the patches to the wrong base branch). Before sending this series I verified that there are no dt_binding_check and dtbs_check warnings or errors when applied to the correct branch. Thanks, Stephan
On 05/06/2023 09:08, Stephan Gerhold wrote: > Use the new top-level rpm-proc node instead of having a dummy top-level > /smd node that only contains the RPM but not other remote processors. > > Signed-off-by: Stephan Gerhold <stephan@gerhold.net> > --- > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,smd-rpm.yaml | 6 +++--- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,smd-rpm.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,smd-rpm.yaml > index c6930706bfa9..06e574239bd4 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,smd-rpm.yaml > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,smd-rpm.yaml > @@ -120,10 +120,10 @@ examples: > #include <dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/arm-gic.h> > #include <dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/irq.h> > > - smd { > - compatible = "qcom,smd"; > + remoteproc-rpm { remoteproc > + compatible = "qcom,msm8916-rpm-proc", "qcom,rpm-proc"; > > - rpm { > + smd-edge { What about binding updates? Anyway, this should be squashed with previous one. > interrupts = <GIC_SPI 168 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>; > qcom,ipc = <&apcs 8 0>; > qcom,smd-edge = <15>; > Best regards, Krzysztof
On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 08:37:04AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 05/06/2023 09:08, Stephan Gerhold wrote: > > Use the new top-level rpm-proc node instead of having a dummy top-level > > /smd node that only contains the RPM but not other remote processors. > > > > Signed-off-by: Stephan Gerhold <stephan@gerhold.net> > > --- > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,smd-rpm.yaml | 6 +++--- > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,smd-rpm.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,smd-rpm.yaml > > index c6930706bfa9..06e574239bd4 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,smd-rpm.yaml > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,smd-rpm.yaml > > @@ -120,10 +120,10 @@ examples: > > [...] > > + compatible = "qcom,msm8916-rpm-proc", "qcom,rpm-proc"; > > > > - rpm { > > + smd-edge { > > What about binding updates? > The binding for this is in PATCH 05/14. The old binding replaced here is deprecated in PATCH 07/14. > Anyway, this should be squashed with previous one. > Sure, I can squash in v2. Thanks, Stephan
On 06/06/2023 11:06, Stephan Gerhold wrote: > On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 08:37:04AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 05/06/2023 09:08, Stephan Gerhold wrote: >>> Use the new top-level rpm-proc node instead of having a dummy top-level >>> /smd node that only contains the RPM but not other remote processors. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Stephan Gerhold <stephan@gerhold.net> >>> --- >>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,smd-rpm.yaml | 6 +++--- >>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,smd-rpm.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,smd-rpm.yaml >>> index c6930706bfa9..06e574239bd4 100644 >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,smd-rpm.yaml >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,smd-rpm.yaml >>> @@ -120,10 +120,10 @@ examples: >>> [...] >>> + compatible = "qcom,msm8916-rpm-proc", "qcom,rpm-proc"; >>> >>> - rpm { >>> + smd-edge { >> >> What about binding updates? >> > > The binding for this is in PATCH 05/14. The old binding replaced here is > deprecated in PATCH 07/14. So changing example without changing binding is not an atomic change. Best regards, Krzysztof
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,smd-rpm.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,smd-rpm.yaml index c6930706bfa9..06e574239bd4 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,smd-rpm.yaml +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,smd-rpm.yaml @@ -120,10 +120,10 @@ examples: #include <dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/arm-gic.h> #include <dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/irq.h> - smd { - compatible = "qcom,smd"; + remoteproc-rpm { + compatible = "qcom,msm8916-rpm-proc", "qcom,rpm-proc"; - rpm { + smd-edge { interrupts = <GIC_SPI 168 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>; qcom,ipc = <&apcs 8 0>; qcom,smd-edge = <15>;
Use the new top-level rpm-proc node instead of having a dummy top-level /smd node that only contains the RPM but not other remote processors. Signed-off-by: Stephan Gerhold <stephan@gerhold.net> --- Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,smd-rpm.yaml | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)