[PATCH v1 1/3] dt-bindings: regulator: pca9450: add pca9451a support

[Frieder Schrempf]

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 <joy.zou at nxp.com>
>>>> ---
>>>
>>> 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.