On 31/05/2023 09:22, Frieder Schrempf wrote: > On 31.05.23 08:56, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 31/05/2023 08:57, Joy Zou wrote: >>> Update pca9450 bindings. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Joy Zou <joy.zou@xxxxxxx> >>> --- >> >> Subject prefix is: regulator: dt-bindings: pca9450: > > Is there some way to have this consistent for all subsystems? Most > subsystems seem to use: > > dt-bindings: [subsystem]: > > But some use: > > [subsystem]: dt-bindings: > > Casual contributors (like me) will very often get it wrong on the first > try. Examining the history is extra effort that could be avoided and > often doesn't provide a definite hint as you find both variations in the > past. > > Can we standardize this and make checkpatch validate the subject line? I understand your pain. :) My expectation is just to have "dt-bindings:" prefix. It can be anywhere - first or second, doesn't matter to me. Then there is the generic rule that subsystem prefix should be the first and here there is a disagreement between some folks. Most maintainers either don't care or assume bindings are separate subsystem. Mark (spi, ASoC, regulator) and media-folks say it is not separate subsystem (real subsystem are spi, regulator etc), thus they want their subsystem name as the first prefix. It sounds reasonable. Anyway it does not contradict DT bindings maintainers expectation to have somewhere "dt-bindings:" prefix. My comment was only to help you and there is no need to resend. I think Mark when applying will drop "dt-bindings" prefix if is before regulator, though. Life, no big deal. Whether checkpatch can do this? Sure, quite likely, one just need some Perl-foo to add such rule. :) Best regards, Krzysztof
