[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 14:36, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 10/04/2024 18:29, mr.nuke.me at gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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.
> 
> No, the dt_binding_check fails. You don't need to go to dtbs_check even,
> because the binding already has a failure.
> 
>>
>> 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.
> 
> I don't feel insulted but I feel my time is wasted if I tell you to test
> your binding and you immediately within few minutes respond "I tested",
> but then:
> 1. Bot confirms it was not tested,
> 2. I apply your patch and test it and see the failure.

Thank you for double checking, and I am sorry this escalated in this 
manner. I believed you the first time that something is wrong, and I had 
a hard time figuring out what.

I am now able to repro the errors, and the below changes appear to work. 
Is that sufficient?

    clocks:
      minItems: 3
      maxItems: 5

    clock-names:
      minItems: 3
      items:
        - ... (5 clock names here)

For ipq6018/ipq8074:

       properties:
         clocks:
           maxItems: 3
         clock-names:
           maxItems: 3

For ipq9574:

       properties:
         clocks:
           minItems: 5
         clock-names:
           minItems: 5