Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Hi Jerome, > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 11:19 PM <jbrunet@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Wed, 2018-07-25 at 21:11 +0200, Martin Blumenstingl wrote: >> > nit-pick: one patch uses "arm64: dts: meson-axg: s400" in the subject >> > while other patches that are touching the s400 board aren't >> > if you have to re-send this series: can you please use the "arm64: >> > dts: meson-axg: s400:" prefix for all patches touching the s400 board? >> >> hum, do we really have such rule, or do you think we should add one ? > looking at the git history in arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic: it seems > that we don't have a rule yet, even though some (some of > your's/Neil's/my) patches were using that naming schema in the past > >> Kevin, do you have opinion ? >> >> Not that I really mind either way, but prefixes rules are usually there to help >> maintainer filter the patches. Will such rule help in any way ? > maybe it's just a problem of a false initial impression > I read "arm64: dts: meson-axg: add usb power regulator" in the > cover-letter and came to the conclusion that this patch must be wrong > since meson-axg.dtsi should not have any regulators (unless they're > built into the SoC). only when looking at the patch itself I realized > that it's fine because it patches the s400.dts I actually had the same first impression problem. At first glance, it looks like all the patches are AXG-generic, and only the 2 that mention s400 apply to the board. So, if this needs a respin, I'd prefer the board name where appropriate, but it's not something I'm going to be picky about. Kevin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
