Re: [PATCH V5] dt-bindings: soc: imx: Add binding doc for spba bus

[Shawn Guo]

On Wed, Nov 03, 2021 at 09:36:59AM -0500, Adam Ford wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 3:11 PM Adam Ford <aford173@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 4:19 PM Adam Ford <aford173@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 4:02 PM Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 18 Nov 2020 17:04:14 -0600, Adam Ford wrote:
> > > > > Add binding doc for fsl,spba-bus.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Adam Ford <aford173@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > make dt_binding_check -j8 |grep spba
> > > > >   DTEX    Documentation/devicetree/bindings/bus/fsl,spba-bus.example.dts
> > > > >   DTC     Documentation/devicetree/bindings/bus/fsl,spba-bus.example.dt.yaml
> > > > >   CHECK   Documentation/devicetree/bindings/bus/fsl,spba-bus.example.dt.yaml
> > > > >
> > > > > V5:  Rebase on 5.10-rc2 to be able to check yaml
> > > > >      Add Reg entry
> > > > >
> > > > > V4:  Remove an accidental makefile change
> > > > >      Move type:object under additional properties
> > > > >
> > > > > V3:  Rebase sample from aips-bus example
> > > > >      Split off from series adding i.MX8M Nano functions to reduce noise
> > > > >
> > > > > V2:  Attempted to update yaml from feedback
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Applied, thanks!
> > >
> > > Rob,
> > >
> > > I am not seeing this anywhere.  Can you tell me where this was
> > > applied?  It's not appearing in Linux-next
> >
> > Rob,
> >
> > Patchwork shows this has been accepted [1], however I don't see that
> > it's still applied.
> >
> >
> > [1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/devicetree-bindings/patch/20201118230414.121316-1-aford173@xxxxxxxxx/
> >
> > Can you apply it?  It looks like building the device tree is throwing
> > messages because this is missing.
> >
> 
> Shawn,
> 
> Since you're the maintainer for the IMX stuff, can I update the
> MAINTAINERS file to add this yaml file under the IMX section?  When
> building device trees, it throws a bunch of splat because this patch
> was never applied, and checkpatch is showing it wants a maintainer.

checkpatch warning on maintainer shouldn't be a problem.  We don't
really want to bloat IMX entry in MAINTAINERS.

Shawn