Re: [PATCH] Documentation/process: maintainer-soc: document dtbs_check requirement for Samsung

[Conor Dooley]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> ---
> > 
> >> 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.
Is adding to the generic DT documentation that dtbs_check should not add
any new warnings at W=1 too extreme?
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.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature