Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] QCM2290 LMH
From: Nícolas F. R. A. Prado
Date: Wed Mar 20 2024 - 15:08:56 EST
On Sat, Mar 09, 2024 at 02:15:01PM +0100, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> Wire up LMH on QCM2290 and fix a bad bug while at it.
>
> P1-2 for thermal, P3 for qcom
>
> Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Changes in v2:
> - Pick up tags
> - Fix a couple typos in commit messages
> - Drop stray msm8998 binding addition
> - Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240308-topic-rb1_lmh-v1-0-50c60ffe1130@xxxxxxxxxx
>
> ---
> Konrad Dybcio (2):
> dt-bindings: thermal: lmh: Add QCM2290 compatible
> thermal: qcom: lmh: Check for SCM availability at probe
>
> Loic Poulain (1):
> arm64: dts: qcom: qcm2290: Add LMH node
>
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/qcom-lmh.yaml | 12 ++++++++----
> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qcm2290.dtsi | 14 +++++++++++++-
> drivers/thermal/qcom/lmh.c | 3 +++
> 3 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
Hi,
I've started tracking the results of 'make dtbs_check' on linux-next, and I've
noticed that on today's next, next-20240320, there's a new warning coming from
this. The reason is that the DT change has landed, but the binding has not,
since it goes through a separate tree. I thought the binding was supposed to
always land before the driver and DT that make use of it, but looking through
the dt-binding documentation pages I couldn't find anything confirming or
denying that.
I expect this to happen again in the future, which is why I'm reaching out to
understand better how to deal with this kind of situation.
Thanks,
Nícolas
> ---
> base-commit: 8ffc8b1bbd505e27e2c8439d326b6059c906c9dd
> change-id: 20240308-topic-rb1_lmh-1e0f440c392a
>
> Best regards,
> --
> Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxx>
>