Hello Rob, On 04/03/2017 05:15 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hello Rob, >> >> On 04/03/2017 11:25 AM, Rob Herring wrote: >>> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 02:25:31PM -0400, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: >>>> The driver contains compatible strings for different models, but the DT >>>> binding doc only lists one of them. Add the remaining to the document. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <[email protected]> >>>> --- >>>> >>>> .../devicetree/bindings/input/touchscreen/silead_gsl1680.txt | 7 >>>> ++++++- >>>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> "dt-bindings: input: ..." is preferred for the subject, but no need to >>> respin just for that. >>> >> >> Can we document it in >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.txt? > > Yes. Actually, I was thinking of adding the preferred prefixes to > MAINTAINERS. Then checkpatch.pl could check it perhaps. >
That would be great. >> I'm asking because is true that at the beginning we used "dt-bindings: foo" >> for >> all DT bindings patches but then many (most?) maintainers started asking for >> the >> subsystem subject line to be used for both drivers and DT bindings docs since >> they would be merging both and also they could miss the DT bindings patches >> if >> their subsystem prefix was not used. > > I'd argue that most subsys maintainers don't (or they just change it > when applying). Mark B does the most. I'm not going to waste any time > arguing over it if folks want something different. I'm mainly trying > to get rid of subjects like "Documentation: devicetree: bindings: > Document the DT binding for foo-bar". :) > Yeah, I don't have a strong opinion. I just want an authoritative doc so I can refer subsystems maintainers to when they argue that I should use their subsystem prefix instead of "dt-bindings: foo: ..." :) > Rob > Best regards, -- Javier Martinez Canillas Open Source Group Samsung Research America
