[PATCH v2 5/7] dt-bindings: phy: qcom,ipq8074-qmp-pcie: add ipq9574 gen3x2 PHY

[mr.nuke.me at gmail.com]

On 4/10/24 02:02, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 10/04/2024 08:59, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 09/04/2024 22:19, mr.nuke.me at gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>    
>>>>>      clock-names:
>>>>>        items:
>>>>>          - const: aux
>>>>>          - const: cfg_ahb
>>>>>          - const: pipe
>>>>> +      - const: anoc
>>>>> +      - const: snoc
>>>>
>>>> OK, you did not test it. Neither this, nor DTS. I stop review, please
>>>> test first.
>>>
>>> I ran both `checkpatch.pl` and `make dt_binding_check`. What in this
>>> patch makes you say I "did not test it", and what test or tests did I miss?
>>>
>>
>> ... and no, you did not. If you tested, you would easily see error:
>> 	clock-names: ['aux', 'cfg_ahb', 'pipe'] is too short
>>
>> When you receive comment from reviewer, please investigate thoroughly
>> what could get wrong. Don't answer just to get rid of reviewer. It's
>> fine to make mistakes, but if reviewer points to issue and you
>> immediately respond "no issue", that's waste of my time.
> 
> To clarify: "no issue" response is waste of my time. If you responded
> "oh, I see the error, but I don't know how to fix it", it would be ok, I
> can clarify and help in this.

I apologize if I gave you this impression. I tried to follow the testing 
process, it did not turn out as expected. Obviously, I missed something. 
I tried to ask what I missed, and in order for that question to make 
sense, I need to describe what I tried.

It turns out what I missed was "make check_dtbs". I only found that out 
after an automated email from Rob describing some troubleshooting steps.

If I may have a few sentences to rant, I see the dt-schema as a hurdle 
to making an otherwise useful change. I am told I can ask for help when 
I get stuck, yet I manage to insult the maintainer by aking for help. I 
find this very intimidating.

Alex