Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] dt-bindings: mfd: sprd: Add bindings for ums512 global registers

[Stephen Boyd]

Quoting Geert Uytterhoeven (2021-10-15 10:09:10)
> Hi Rob, Stephen,
> 
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 3:59 PM Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 6:02 PM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Quoting Rob Herring (2021-10-14 09:18:16)
> > > > On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 1:48 AM Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't explicitly build DT documentation.
> > > > >
> > > > > Since I use the build bots to let me know if there are strange !(C,
> > > > > ASM, arm, aarch64, mips, ppc, x86) build issues or ones with odd
> > > > > configuration possibilities (randconfig) in the repos I maintain, you
> > > > > might have to convince them that this is important too.
> > > >
> > > > It's really just a matter of turning on the build in
> > > > allyesconfig/allmodconfig builds. I've not done that primarily because
> > > > there's one person I don't want to yell at me, but I could probably
> > > > make it arm and/or arm64 only. It's really arch and config
> > > > independent, so doing it multiple times is kind of pointless.
> > > >
> > > > I assume for bots you mean kernel-ci mainly? Do you run that before
> > > > stuff gets into linux-next? IMO, that's too late. But still a slight
> > > > improvement if things go in via one tree. Otherwise, I see the
> > > > breakage twice, 1st linux-next then the merge window.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I run `make dt_binding_check DT_SCHEMA_FILES="<path to yaml file>"` but
> > > nowadays this seems to check all the bindings and not just the one
> > > binding I care to check. Did something break?
> >
> > It should apply all the schemas to the example in DT_SCHEMA_FILES.
> > Originally, it only applied DT_SCHEMA_FILES schema to the example in
> > DT_SCHEMA_FILES.
> 
> Probably Stephen means that yamllint is still run on all files, which
> I tried to fix in [1]?
> 
> I've been running an improved version for months, but I haven't sent
> it out yet.
> 

Oh yeah probably. Do I need to carry this patch locally until it is
fixed?