Hello Heiko,
On 2024-08-08 09:54, Heiko Stübner wrote:
Am Dienstag, 6. August 2024, 18:34:41 CEST schrieb Detlev Casanova:
On Sunday, 4 August 2024 05:56:39 EDT Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 02/08/2024 17:14, Detlev Casanova wrote:
> > From: Finley Xiao <finley.xiao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Define power domain IDs as described in the TRM.
>
> Please use subject prefixes matching the subsystem. You can get them for
> example with `git log --oneline -- DIRECTORY_OR_FILE` on the directory
> your patch is touching. For bindings, the preferred subjects are
> explained here:
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patche
> s.html#i-for-patch-submitters
> > Signed-off-by: Finley Xiao <finley.xiao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > [reword]
> > Signed-off-by: Detlev Casanova <detlev.casanova@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >
> > include/dt-bindings/power/rk3576-power.h | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+)
> > create mode 100644 include/dt-bindings/power/rk3576-power.h
>
> This is part of bindings.
>
> > diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/power/rk3576-power.h
> > b/include/dt-bindings/power/rk3576-power.h
> Missing vendor prefix. This should be named after compatible.
Looks like all other rockchip power bindings use the
include/dt-bindings/
power/rkXXXX.h format. Should I keep that way ?
there is also rockchip,rv1126-power.h , so please follow Krzysztof's
suggestion. Older header namings need to stay the same of course
but that shouldn't keep us from updating naming schemes to better
work in new additions.
Actually, why don't we rename the old headers to follow the new naming
rules?
Is there something preventing us from doing that, which I'm missing?
