On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 5:59 AM, Greentime Hu <green...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 6:17 AM, Rob Herring <r...@kernel.org> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:09:20PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 6:34 PM, David Miller <da...@davemloft.net> wrote: >> > > From: Greentime Hu <green...@gmail.com> >> > > Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 16:46:14 +0800 >> > >> We also use the same binding document to describe the same faraday >> > >> ethernet >> > >> controller and add faraday to vendor-prefixes.txt. >> > > >> > > Why are you renaming the MOXA binding file instead of adding a >> > > completely new one >> > > for faraday? The MOXA one should stick around, I don't see a >> > > justification for >> > > removing it. >> > >> > This was my suggestion, basically fixing the name of the existing >> > binding, which was >> > accidentally named after one of the users rather than the company that did >> > the >> > hardware. >> > >> > We can't change the compatible string, but I'd much prefer having only >> > one binding >> > file for this device rather than two separate ones that could possibly >> > become >> > incompatible in case we add new properties to them. If there is only >> > one of them, >> > naming it according to the hardware design is the general policy. >> > >> > Note that we currently have two separate device drivers, but that is more a >> > historic artifact, and if we ever get around to merging them into one >> > driver, >> > that should not impact the binding. >> >> The change is fine with me, but the subject and commit message need some >> work. > > Hi, Rob: > > Would you please advise me of the proper subject and commit messages?
Split the binding to a separate commit and summarize the email discussion here. For a subject, something like this: "dt-bindings: net: generalize moxart-mac to support all faraday based ftmac IP" Rob