Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <0beb714b-7e8d-6699-6f09-df68b9307f1c@linaro.org>
Date:   Wed, 12 Jul 2023 21:37:03 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.13.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation/process: maintainer-soc: document
 dtbs_check requirement for Samsung
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>,
        soc@kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, workflows@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20230712084131.127982-1-krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
 <20230712-skier-ribcage-0d82be7e16fd@wendy>
 <da79ac87-f112-be43-52b2-2293e1a99d9b@linaro.org>
 <20230712-unfasten-trespass-d57b3ff1f134@wendy>
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <20230712-unfasten-trespass-d57b3ff1f134@wendy>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 12/07/2023 14:34, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 01:46:20PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 12/07/2023 11:48, Conor Dooley wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 10:41:31AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> Samsung ARM/ARM64 SoCs (except legacy S5PV210) are also expected not to
>>>> bring any new dtbs_check warnings.  In fact this have been already
>>>> enforced and tested since few release.
>>>>
>>>> Cc: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>
>>>> Not sure where to document this. Creating new maintainer profile for
>>>> Samsung SoC would be an overkill. OTOH, more SoCs might want to grow
>>>> this list, so this also scales poor.
>>>
>>> To me, this portion of the document was "information to the
>>> submaintainer", which would be you, not information to the contributors
>>> to the platform. Adding the comment about Samsung SoC seems aimed at
>>> contributors?
>>
>> Yes, I want to document it for contributors, so they won't be surprised.
>> Any hints where to store it? I could put it in the "About" tab of my
>> kernel.org repo, but no one checks this for contribution guidelines.
> 
> I've not got a better suggestion for where to put this, but under
> something labelled as "Information for (new) Submaintainers" isn't
> where I would be looking as a contributor.

Yeah, true.

> Is adding to the generic DT documentation that dtbs_check should not add
> any new warnings at W=1 too extreme?

It is to extreme. Several sub-arch maintainers might prioritize features
than DT schema compliance. I would say it is their choice, even if I
don't agree with it.

> writing-schema.rst has the instructions about how to run dtbs_check while
> writing dt-binding patches, but we don't seem to have any docs about
> running dtbs_check for dts/dtsi changes.

Maybe I will add generic maintainer-sub-arch-soc profile doc which then
can be linked by multiple soc subsystems.

Best regards,
Krzysztof