| Message ID | 9e137548c4e76e0d8deef6d49460cb37897934ca.1682333574.git.baruch@tkos.co.il |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | c44e0503e5fd90c5ccbf81bcff7b6b70e9e2655b |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v2,1/2] docs: dt: fix documented Primecell compatible string | expand |
Hi Krzysztof, On Mon, May 01 2023, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 25/04/2023 10:31, Baruch Siach wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 24 2023, Baruch Siach wrote: >>> Only arm,primecell is documented as compatible string for Primecell >>> peripherals. Current code agrees with that. >> >> Once again my patches do not show up in patchwork. But they do show in >> lore: >> >> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/9e137548c4e76e0d8deef6d49460cb37897934ca.1682333574.git.baruch@tkos.co.il/ > > You used subject prefix which targets Doc subsystem, but did not Cc Doc > maintainers (get_maintainers do not print them). If you target Rob's > Patchwork, probably you need to fix subject prefix. There is no "dt" prefix. Thanks for the tip. All previous commits touching Documentation/devicetree/usage-model.rst use 'docs' for subject prefix, including one from Rob. I followed this example. As for patchwork, I believe you refer to this one http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/devicetree-bindings/list/ Not all patches on the list use dt-bindings for subject prefix. For example http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/devicetree-bindings/patch/20230317053415.2254616-2-frowand.list@gmail.com/ The DT submitting-patches document (Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.rst) mentions the dt-bindings subject prefix rule. But this patch does not touch binding documentation. Is there anything I should do differently to get this patch applied? Thanks, baruch
On 01/05/2023 12:01, Baruch Siach wrote: > Hi Krzysztof, > > On Mon, May 01 2023, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 25/04/2023 10:31, Baruch Siach wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 24 2023, Baruch Siach wrote: >>>> Only arm,primecell is documented as compatible string for Primecell >>>> peripherals. Current code agrees with that. >>> >>> Once again my patches do not show up in patchwork. But they do show in >>> lore: >>> >>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/9e137548c4e76e0d8deef6d49460cb37897934ca.1682333574.git.baruch@tkos.co.il/ >> >> You used subject prefix which targets Doc subsystem, but did not Cc Doc >> maintainers (get_maintainers do not print them). If you target Rob's >> Patchwork, probably you need to fix subject prefix. There is no "dt" prefix. > > Thanks for the tip. > > All previous commits touching Documentation/devicetree/usage-model.rst > use 'docs' for subject prefix, including one from Rob. I followed this > example. Hm, I see Rob and others indeed used "dt:". I guess Rob's filters might need some updates? Best regards, Krzysztof
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/usage-model.rst b/Documentation/devicetree/usage-model.rst index b6a287955ee5..0717426856b2 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/usage-model.rst +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/usage-model.rst @@ -415,6 +415,6 @@ When using the DT, this creates problems for of_platform_populate() because it must decide whether to register each node as either a platform_device or an amba_device. This unfortunately complicates the device creation model a little bit, but the solution turns out not to -be too invasive. If a node is compatible with "arm,amba-primecell", then +be too invasive. If a node is compatible with "arm,primecell", then of_platform_populate() will register it as an amba_device instead of a platform_device.
Only arm,primecell is documented as compatible string for Primecell peripherals. Current code agrees with that. Signed-off-by: Baruch Siach <baruch@tkos.co.il> --- v2: Split the translation update to a separate patch --- Documentation/devicetree/usage-model.rst | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)