On 31/05/2023 08:57, Joy Zou wrote:
> Update pca9450 bindings.
>
> Signed-off-by: Joy Zou <[email protected]>
> ---
Subject prefix is: regulator: dt-bindings: pca9450:
Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
Best regards,
Krzysztof
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
> Sent: 2023年5月31日 14:56
> To: Joy Zou <[email protected]>; Jacky Bai <[email protected]>;
> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; dl-linux-imx
> <[email protected]>; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] dt-bindings: regulator: pca9450: add
> pca9451a support
>
> Caution: This is an external email. Please take care when clicking links or
> opening attachments. When in doubt, report the message using the 'Report
> this email' button
>
>
> On 31/05/2023 08:57, Joy Zou wrote:
> > Update pca9450 bindings.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Joy Zou <[email protected]>
> > ---
>
> Subject prefix is: regulator: dt-bindings: pca9450:
I will fix it in patch v2.
Thanks Krzysztof Kozlowski!
BR
Joy Zou
>
> Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
On 31.05.23 08:56, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 31/05/2023 08:57, Joy Zou wrote:
>> Update pca9450 bindings.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Joy Zou <[email protected]>
>> ---
>
> Subject prefix is: regulator: dt-bindings: pca9450:
Is there some way to have this consistent for all subsystems? Most
subsystems seem to use:
dt-bindings: [subsystem]:
But some use:
[subsystem]: dt-bindings:
Casual contributors (like me) will very often get it wrong on the first
try. Examining the history is extra effort that could be avoided and
often doesn't provide a definite hint as you find both variations in the
past.
Can we standardize this and make checkpatch validate the subject line?
On 31/05/2023 09:22, Frieder Schrempf wrote:
> On 31.05.23 08:56, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 31/05/2023 08:57, Joy Zou wrote:
>>> Update pca9450 bindings.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Joy Zou <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>
>> Subject prefix is: regulator: dt-bindings: pca9450:
>
> Is there some way to have this consistent for all subsystems? Most
> subsystems seem to use:
>
> dt-bindings: [subsystem]:
>
> But some use:
>
> [subsystem]: dt-bindings:
>
> Casual contributors (like me) will very often get it wrong on the first
> try. Examining the history is extra effort that could be avoided and
> often doesn't provide a definite hint as you find both variations in the
> past.
>
> Can we standardize this and make checkpatch validate the subject line?
I understand your pain. :)
My expectation is just to have "dt-bindings:" prefix. It can be anywhere
- first or second, doesn't matter to me.
Then there is the generic rule that subsystem prefix should be the first
and here there is a disagreement between some folks. Most maintainers
either don't care or assume bindings are separate subsystem. Mark (spi,
ASoC, regulator) and media-folks say it is not separate subsystem (real
subsystem are spi, regulator etc), thus they want their subsystem name
as the first prefix. It sounds reasonable. Anyway it does not contradict
DT bindings maintainers expectation to have somewhere "dt-bindings:" prefix.
My comment was only to help you and there is no need to resend. I think
Mark when applying will drop "dt-bindings" prefix if is before
regulator, though. Life, no big deal.
Whether checkpatch can do this? Sure, quite likely, one just need some
Perl-foo to add such rule. :)
Best regards,
Krzysztof
On 31.05.23 11:11, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 31/05/2023 09:22, Frieder Schrempf wrote:
>> On 31.05.23 08:56, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 31/05/2023 08:57, Joy Zou wrote:
>>>> Update pca9450 bindings.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Joy Zou <[email protected]>
>>>> ---
>>>
>>> Subject prefix is: regulator: dt-bindings: pca9450:
>>
>> Is there some way to have this consistent for all subsystems? Most
>> subsystems seem to use:
>>
>> dt-bindings: [subsystem]:
>>
>> But some use:
>>
>> [subsystem]: dt-bindings:
>>
>> Casual contributors (like me) will very often get it wrong on the first
>> try. Examining the history is extra effort that could be avoided and
>> often doesn't provide a definite hint as you find both variations in the
>> past.
>>
>> Can we standardize this and make checkpatch validate the subject line?
>
> I understand your pain. :)
>
> My expectation is just to have "dt-bindings:" prefix. It can be anywhere
> - first or second, doesn't matter to me.
>
> Then there is the generic rule that subsystem prefix should be the first
> and here there is a disagreement between some folks. Most maintainers
> either don't care or assume bindings are separate subsystem. Mark (spi,
> ASoC, regulator) and media-folks say it is not separate subsystem (real
> subsystem are spi, regulator etc), thus they want their subsystem name
> as the first prefix. It sounds reasonable. Anyway it does not contradict
> DT bindings maintainers expectation to have somewhere "dt-bindings:" prefix.
Ok, thanks for the explanation. Would be nice if maintainers could agree
on one version then.
>
> My comment was only to help you and there is no need to resend. I think
> Mark when applying will drop "dt-bindings" prefix if is before
> regulator, though. Life, no big deal.
Im not the patch author, I was just jumping in as I saw your reply and
it already happened a few times to me that I needed more than one try
and used precious maintainer time just to get the subject right. So I
thought there is some potential for improvement.
>
> Whether checkpatch can do this? Sure, quite likely, one just need some
> Perl-foo to add such rule. :)
Ok, this isn't something for me, but maybe someone around can come up
with an approach.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
> Sent: 2023年5月31日 17:12
> To: Frieder Schrempf <[email protected]>; Joy Zou
> <[email protected]>; Jacky Bai <[email protected]>; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; dl-linux-imx
> <[email protected]>; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] dt-bindings: regulator: pca9450: add
> pca9451a support
>
> Caution: This is an external email. Please take care when clicking links or
> opening attachments. When in doubt, report the message using the 'Report
> this email' button
>
>
> On 31/05/2023 09:22, Frieder Schrempf wrote:
> > On 31.05.23 08:56, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On 31/05/2023 08:57, Joy Zou wrote:
> >>> Update pca9450 bindings.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Joy Zou <[email protected]>
> >>> ---
> >>
> >> Subject prefix is: regulator: dt-bindings: pca9450:
> >
> > Is there some way to have this consistent for all subsystems? Most
> > subsystems seem to use:
> >
> > dt-bindings: [subsystem]:
> >
> > But some use:
> >
> > [subsystem]: dt-bindings:
> >
> > Casual contributors (like me) will very often get it wrong on the
> > first try. Examining the history is extra effort that could be avoided
> > and often doesn't provide a definite hint as you find both variations
> > in the past.
> >
> > Can we standardize this and make checkpatch validate the subject line?
>
> I understand your pain. :)
>
> My expectation is just to have "dt-bindings:" prefix. It can be anywhere
> - first or second, doesn't matter to me.
>
> Then there is the generic rule that subsystem prefix should be the first and
> here there is a disagreement between some folks. Most maintainers either
> don't care or assume bindings are separate subsystem. Mark (spi, ASoC,
> regulator) and media-folks say it is not separate subsystem (real subsystem are
> spi, regulator etc), thus they want their subsystem name as the first prefix. It
> sounds reasonable. Anyway it does not contradict DT bindings maintainers
> expectation to have somewhere "dt-bindings:" prefix.
>
> My comment was only to help you and there is no need to resend. I think
> Mark when applying will drop "dt-bindings" prefix if is before regulator, though.
> Life, no big deal.
Ok, thank you very much for the explanation!
I better adjust the prefix.
BR
Joy Zou
>
> Whether checkpatch can do this? Sure, quite likely, one just need some
> Perl-foo to add such rule. :)
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof