Re: checkpatch - "DT binding docs and includes should be a separate patch"

[Rob Herring]

On Sun, Feb 09, 2020 at 12:35:26AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sun, 2020-02-09 at 09:19 +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > Hi Joe.
> > 
> > The following warnings triggers on the patch below:
> > 
> > c55d0a554843 (HEAD -> drm-misc-next) dt-bindings: panel: Convert orisetech,otm8009a to json-schema
> > -:15: WARNING:FILE_PATH_CHANGES: added, moved or deleted file(s), does MAINTAINERS need updating?
> > #15:
> > deleted file mode 100644
> > 
> > -:18: WARNING:DT_SPLIT_BINDING_PATCH: DT binding docs and includes should be a separate patch. See: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.txt
> > 
> > -:43: WARNING:DT_SPLIT_BINDING_PATCH: DT binding docs and includes should be a separate patch. See: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.txt
> > 
> > total: 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 checks, 53 lines checked
> > 
> > 1)
> > yaml files include maintainer information in the file.
> > I dunno if this replaces/overrules MAINTAINERS - so first warning may be
> > OK. Also because we delete a file it seems semi relevant.
> > 
> > 2)
> > As the patch only touches files in Documentation/devicetree/bindings the
> > warning about a separate patch seems wrong.
> 
> Rob Herring wrote that bit.  He's now cc'd.  lkml too.

Yeah, I'd noticed this, but haven't dug into how to fix it. Given it 
mainly happens in these schema conversion patches, I haven't been to 
worried about it. Just 3300 more conversions todo and it will be 
"fixed".

> > But the general feedback - in this very special case - is that
> > checkpatch seems a bit too noisy.
> > 
> > If we as a bonus could get a warning when new yaml files do not
> > use:
> > # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only or BSD-2-Clause)
> > That would be great.
> 
> Submitted here:
> 
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/1/29/292

The bigger review issue is to check the above license is what's used 
(but not on conversions).

Rob