Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: soc: ti: ti,pruss: fix schema ID

[Suman Anna]

On 9/17/20 3:35 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 at 10:32, Grzegorz Jaszczyk
> <grzegorz.jaszczyk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 at 09:05, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> Add missing '#' to fix schema errors:
>>>
>>>   $id: 'http://devicetree.org/schemas/soc/ti/ti,pruss.yaml' does not match 'http://devicetree.org/schemas/.*\\.yaml#'
>>>   $schema: 'http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml' is not one of ['http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#', 'http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/base.yaml#']
>>>   Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/ti/ti,pruss.yaml: ignoring, error in schema: $id
>>>

Thanks for the fix, Krzysztof.

Fixes: bd691ce0ba9d ("dt-bindings: soc: ti: Add TI PRUSS bindings")
>>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx>

With that,
Acked-by: Suman Anna <s-anna@xxxxxx>

Santosh,
Can you please pick this up before you send your pull request to arm-soc
maintainers?

You may also want to check your tooling to see what happened.

regards
Suman


>>> ---
>>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/ti/ti,pruss.yaml | 4 ++--
>>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/ti/ti,pruss.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/ti/ti,pruss.yaml
>>> index cf7dc83f724f..037c51b2f972 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/ti/ti,pruss.yaml
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/ti/ti,pruss.yaml
>>> @@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
>>>  # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
>>>  %YAML 1.2
>>>  ---
>>> -$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/soc/ti/ti,pruss.yaml
>>> -$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml
>>> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/soc/ti/ti,pruss.yaml#
>>> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
>>
>> I've double checked and "#" was present in the original patch sent and
>> ack for upstream: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11729649/
>> It seems like something got wrong on linux-next but this is the only
>> diff between original patch and one found in linux-next. Thank you for
>> taking care of it.
> 
> Indeed that's weird. It must get lost when applying...
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>