Hi Matheus,
Am 07.03.20 um 01:24 schrieb Matheus Castello:
The Caninos Loucos Program develops Single Board Computers with an open
structure. The Program wants to form a community of developers to use
the IoT technology and disseminate the learning of embedded systems in
I would suggest "IoT technologies" without "the".
Brazil.
The boards are designed and manufactured by LSI-TEC NPO.
Signed-off-by: Matheus Castello <matheus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml
index 9e67944bec9c..3e974dd563cf 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml
@@ -167,6 +167,8 @@ patternProperties:
description: Calxeda
"^capella,.*":
description: Capella Microsystems, Inc
+ "^caninos,.*":
+ description: Caninos Loucos LSI-TEC NPO
Alphabetical order: n goes before p.
I'm confused by the description... Either this Caninos Loucos is an
independent vendor and gets its own prefix, or it's LSI-Tec and uses
something like lsi-tec,caninosloucos-foo. Please clarify commit message
and/or description line, at least by inserting something like "program
by", "brand by" or the like rather than just concatenating names. Maybe
compare UDOO by SECO. Is caninos,foo unique enough or should it be
caninosloucos,foo? (crazy canines?)
Note that I usually attempt to CC the organizations I'm assigning a
vendor prefix for. Do you represent them or coordinated with them?
Regards,
Andreas
"^cascoda,.*":
description: Cascoda, Ltd.
"^catalyst,.*":
--
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH
Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Felix Imendörffer
HRB 36809 (AG Nürnberg)
