Re: [PATCH 2/2] SoC: dt-bindings: asahi-kasei,ak4619: Add PDN GPIO support

[Alexander Koch]

> > Add documentation for optional property that enables operation of the
> > 'PDN' pin during initialization:
> >
> >      codec@10 {
> >          compatible = "asahi-kasei,ak4619";
> >          reg = <0x10>;
> >          pdn-gpios = <&gpio1 0 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;  // <--
> >          #sound-dai-cells = <0>;
> >      };
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alexander Koch <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   .../devicetree/bindings/sound/asahi-kasei,ak4619.yaml     | 8 ++++++++
> >   1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> My bot found errors running 'make dt_binding_check' on your patch:
>
> yamllint warnings/errors:
>
> dtschema/dtc warnings/errors:
> Lexical error: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/asahi-kasei,ak4619.example.dts:25.39-55 Unexpected 'GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH'
> FATAL ERROR: Syntax error parsing input tree
> make[2]: *** [scripts/Makefile.dtbs:140: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/asahi-kasei,ak4619.example.dtb] Error 1
> make[2]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
> make[1]: *** [/builds/robherring/linux-dt-review/Makefile:1714: dt_binding_check] Error 2
> make: *** [Makefile:248: __sub-make] Error 2
>
> doc reference errors (make refcheckdocs):
>
> See https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/devicetree/patch/20260928114019.1441752-3-mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> The base for the series is generally the latest rc1. A different dependency
> should be noted in *this* patch.
>
> If you already ran 'make dt_binding_check' and didn't see the above
> error(s), then make sure 'yamllint' is installed and dt-schema is up to
> date:
>
> pip3 install dtschema --upgrade
>
> Please check and re-submit after running the above command yourself. Note
> that DT_SCHEMA_FILES can be set to your schema file to speed up checking
> your schema. However, it must be unset to test all examples with your schema.

Thanks for the review and the clarifications!

I must admit I am a bit new to the concept of YAML based DT bindings 
documentation and did not realize that examples must be syntactically 
complete.

So for a fixed v2 would you prefer

a) the missing #include added above the i2c block or
b) the new property removed from the example since it is optional anyway?


Best regards,

Alex