Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] QCM2290 LMH

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 26/03/2024 15:07, Nícolas F. R. A. Prado wrote:
>> Other reports, like for cases when only parts of patch is applied, could
>> be also useful but I am afraid you will generate way too much of them.
>> Binding is supposed to go via subsystem, DTS via SoC, so basically 90%
>> of patchsets might have some sort of delays resulting in dtbs_check
>> false positive warnings.
>>
>> For my SoC I check my trees, mainline and next, and keep adding list of
>> exceptions for expected issues. What's useful for Qualcomm? Konrad,
> 
> Is that list of exceptions in-tree? If there are known false-positives (issues

None of the warnings - C, sparse, smatch, coccinelle, Coverity, dtc,
dtbs_check - are stored in-tree. I don't think dtbs_check should be here
exception, because all these warnings can be fixed - it's just a matter
of effort. ARM64 Exynos is warning free since a year. ARM Exynos
similarly, but with one undocumented compatible and few bumps due to
intra-cycle DTS changes.

> that can't be "properly" fixed), they should be public knowledge. And if we all

They are "public":
https://github.com/krzk/tools/blob/master/buildbot/master_build_common.py#L26

but I don't know how to make them public and usable knowledge.

Best regards,
Krzysztof