On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 11:12:51PM -0700, Rosen Penev wrote: > On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 11:02 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 29/08/2025 03:47, Rosen Penev wrote: > > >> dtschema/dtc warnings/errors: > > >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/qca,ath9k.example.dts:92.15-25: Warning (reg_format): /example-2/ahb/wifi@180c0000/led:reg: property has invalid length (4 bytes) (#address-cells == 2, #size-cells == 1) > > >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/qca,ath9k.example.dts:91.17-94.15: Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): /example-2/ahb/wifi@180c0000/led: node has a reg or ranges property, but no unit name > > >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/qca,ath9k.example.dtb: Warning (pci_device_reg): Failed prerequisite 'reg_format' > > >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/qca,ath9k.example.dtb: Warning (pci_device_bus_num): Failed prerequisite 'reg_format' > > >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/qca,ath9k.example.dtb: Warning (simple_bus_reg): Failed prerequisite 'reg_format' > > >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/qca,ath9k.example.dtb: Warning (i2c_bus_reg): Failed prerequisite 'reg_format' > > >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/qca,ath9k.example.dtb: Warning (spi_bus_reg): Failed prerequisite 'reg_format' > > >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/qca,ath9k.example.dts:91.17-94.15: Warning (avoid_default_addr_size): /example-2/ahb/wifi@180c0000/led: Relying on default #address-cells value > > >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/qca,ath9k.example.dts:91.17-94.15: Warning (avoid_default_addr_size): /example-2/ahb/wifi@180c0000/led: Relying on default #size-cells value > > >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/qca,ath9k.example.dtb: Warning (unique_unit_address_if_enabled): Failed prerequisite 'avoid_default_addr_size' > > >> > > >> doc reference errors (make refcheckdocs): > > >> > > >> See https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/devicetree-bindings/patch/20250827005658.3464-2-rosenp@xxxxxxxxx > > > FFS. These reviews were garbage. The next series will effectively be > > > > What? My and Conor reviews were garbage? > I was specifically referring to replacing led-sources with reg. The You sent untested, broken code and you complain that reviews were garbage? > latter needs address and size-cells specified which is verbose for no > good reason. > > Meaning the initial patchset was almost ideal. Just > of_device_is_available needed to be fixed. > > I'm irritated as this will be up to v5 when it should have been up to v2. Start testing your patches finally! That's your job, not our infrastructure! I think every damn patch from you was completely broken, because you did not bother to test, but you call reviews of others "garbage". That's not acceptable.
