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

[Joy Zou]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski at linaro.org>
> Sent: 2023年5月31日 17:12
> To: Frieder Schrempf <frieder.schrempf at kontron.de>; Joy Zou
> <joy.zou at nxp.com>; Jacky Bai <ping.bai at nxp.com>; lgirdwood at gmail.com;
> broonie at kernel.org; robh+dt at kernel.org; krzysztof.kozlowski+dt at linaro.org;
> conor+dt at kernel.org; shawnguo at kernel.org; s.hauer at pengutronix.de
> Cc: kernel at pengutronix.de; festevam at gmail.com; dl-linux-imx
> <linux-imx at nxp.com>; devicetree at vger.kernel.org;
> linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org; linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org
> 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 <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.
> 
> 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