[PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: Add power-domain header for RK3576 SoCs

[Dragan Simic]

Hello Heiko,

On 2024-08-08 09:54, Heiko Stübner wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 6. August 2024, 18:34:41 CEST schrieb Detlev Casanova:
>> On Sunday, 4 August 2024 05:56:39 EDT Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> > On 02/08/2024 17:14, Detlev Casanova wrote:
>> > > From: Finley Xiao <finley.xiao at rock-chips.com>
>> > >
>> > > Define power domain IDs as described in the TRM.
>> >
>> > Please use subject prefixes matching the subsystem. You can get them for
>> > example with `git log --oneline -- DIRECTORY_OR_FILE` on the directory
>> > your patch is touching. For bindings, the preferred subjects are
>> > explained here:
>> > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patche
>> > s.html#i-for-patch-submitters
>> > > Signed-off-by: Finley Xiao <finley.xiao at rock-chips.com>
>> > > [reword]
>> > > Signed-off-by: Detlev Casanova <detlev.casanova at collabora.com>
>> > > ---
>> > >
>> > >  include/dt-bindings/power/rk3576-power.h | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> > >  1 file changed, 30 insertions(+)
>> > >  create mode 100644 include/dt-bindings/power/rk3576-power.h
>> >
>> > This is part of bindings.
>> >
>> > > diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/power/rk3576-power.h
>> > > b/include/dt-bindings/power/rk3576-power.h
>> > Missing vendor prefix. This should be named after compatible.
>> 
>> Looks like all other rockchip power bindings use the 
>> include/dt-bindings/
>> power/rkXXXX.h format. Should I keep that way ?
> 
> there is also rockchip,rv1126-power.h , so please follow Krzysztof's
> suggestion. Older header namings need to stay the same of course
> but that shouldn't keep us from updating naming schemes to better
> work in new additions.

Actually, why don't we rename the old headers to follow the new naming 
rules?
Is there something preventing us from doing that, which I'm missing?