Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 18 Aug 2021 08:05:35 -0500
From:   Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>
To:     Sinthu Raja <sinthu.raja@mistralsolutions.com>,
        "Nagalla, Hari" <hnagalla@ti.com>
CC:     Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@wizery.com>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Suman Anna <s-anna@ti.com>,
        Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>,
        <linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org>, <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Lokesh Vutla <lokeshvutla@ti.com>,
        Sinthu Raja <sinthu.raja@ti.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V1] dt-bindings: remoteproc: k3-dsp: Update example to
 remove board specific
Message-ID: <20210818130535.siv7jpjjzfwonwdt@unsteady>
References: <20210818074030.1877-1-sinthu.raja@ti.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210818074030.1877-1-sinthu.raja@ti.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20171215
Precedence: bulk

On 13:10-20210818, Sinthu Raja wrote:
> The example includes a board-specific compatible property, but developers
> need to add the board name each time when a new board is added to the K3
> J721E SoC list. This grows the compatible string-list. So, drop the
> board-specific compatible string and add cbass_main as a parent node to

What is cbass_main node?

> avoid parent node and child node address-cells mismatch error.
> 

I think you mean that since the existing example uses address cells and
size for 64bit addresses and sizes, you are introducing a bus segment
indicative of the same capability to reduce the churn in the binding.
Correct? if so, rephrase accordingly.

> Signed-off-by: Sinthu Raja <sinthu.raja@ti.com>

Your From: and Signed-off-by email IDs do not match. You might want to
re-read the contribution guidelines documentation in linux kernel.

This should be also tagged with Fixes: since it is fixing a pre-existing
binding that slipped through our review.

NOTE: at least my test.. (I think rob's system will still complain)
base: next-20210818
b4 am -o  ~/tmp -3 -g -t -l -c -s --no-cover 20210818074030.1877-1-sinthu.raja@ti.com
	https://pastebin.ubuntu.com/p/VxzzvzpY9N/

I mean, both these can be caught with checkpatch and standard checks, so
did you see that in your basic vett prior to posting?

> ---
> Changes in V1:
> Fixed alignment issue which caused the yaml parse error.

Some 101 comments:

A) when you post a new revision, post a url like previous versions in
   diffstat - :
   https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/20210817152005.21575-1-sinthu.raja@ti.com/
B) When you are sending the very first patch, it is already V1 and
   does'nt need to be explicitly stated. this update to your original
   post is a V2, so, when you update this patch to address the review
   comments, the next revision will be V3.

> 
>  .../devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-dsp-rproc.yaml     | 6 ++----
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-dsp-rproc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-dsp-rproc.yaml
> index 6070456a7b67..e44a9397b8db 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-dsp-rproc.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-dsp-rproc.yaml
> @@ -132,10 +132,8 @@ required:
>  unevaluatedProperties: false
>  
>  examples:
> -  - |
> -    / {
> -        model = "Texas Instruments K3 J721E SoC";
> -        compatible = "ti,j721e";
> +  - |+

minor detail: you are also doing one additional change -> you are now using
the standard example template and adding the example node instead of a
complete example node as well here. Personally, I do prefer this
approach rather than the previous example.

> +    cbass_main {
>          #address-cells = <2>;
>          #size-cells = <2>;


Usually, when one sees problems like these, they tend to be
symptomatic, and we need to look if there is a similar pattern of
error else where in the codebase.

Sigh, in this case, I see the same problem in:
a) Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml
b) Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwlock/ti,omap-hwspinlock.yaml

Hari, Sinthu,
Can we fix these in a series that belongs to each maintainer?

>  
> -- 
> 2.31.1
> 

-- 
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
Key (0xDDB5849D1736249D) / Fingerprint: F8A2 8693 54EB 8232 17A3  1A34 DDB5 849D 1736 249D