Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] dt-bindings: wire style checker into dt_binding_check

[Rob Herring]

On Thu, May 07, 2026 at 05:26:41PM +0800, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> On Wed, May 06, 2026 at 01:44:47PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 29, 2026 at 03:21:33PM +0100, Daniel Golle wrote:
> > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/Makefile b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/Makefile
> > > index 7b668f7fd400..35ddd0b7a349 100644
> > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/Makefile
> > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/Makefile
> > > @@ -46,6 +46,19 @@ quiet_cmd_chk_bindings = CHKDT   $(src)
> > >  			  xargs -n200 -P$$(nproc) $(DT_DOC_CHECKER) -u $(src)) \
> > >  			  && touch $@ || true
> > >  
> > > +DT_CHK_STYLE = $(srctree)/scripts/dtc/dt-check-style
> > > +
> > > +# Feed the file list to the checker via @argfile in a single Python
> > > +# process so the ruamel.yaml import is paid once. scripts/jobserver-exec
> > > +# claims slots from the GNU make jobserver and exposes the count via
> > > +# $PARALLELISM, which dt-check-style picks up to size its worker pool.
> > > +quiet_cmd_chk_style = STYLE   $(src)
> > > +      cmd_chk_style = f=$$(mktemp) && $(find_cmd) > $$f && \
> > > +		      $(PYTHON3) $(srctree)/scripts/jobserver-exec \
> > > +		      $(PYTHON3) $(DT_CHK_STYLE) @$$f; \
> > 
> > What's the reason to run via PYTHON3 vs. running dt-check-style 
> > directly? It's just different from the rest of this makefile.
> 
> In general, scripts should be called with an explicit interpreter to
> 
> 1. not rely on the file being executable (I think quilt has issues with
> this at times?)

Does that apply to external scripts? Not the case here, but for the rest 
of this file that is the case.

Rob