On 2022-12-11 21:11:51, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 10/12/2022 17:31, Marijn Suijten wrote: > > [..] > > If we were able to have rules for labels, would I then be allowed to > > "correct" this? > > If we had rules, yes. But we do not have. That's like - I will rename > all variables because of some non-existing rules... There is no rule, no > coding style (except what I wrote)... > > > The inconsistency between DTs is /super/ annoying (and > > it looks wrong to have a singular _gpio named thing contain /multiple > > gpios/), > > What do you mean - looks wrong? It's just a label which does not matter, > so how it can be wrong? > > > but just because we can't express this in dt-bindings (or so I > > think) we shouldn't change it? > > No, it just does not matter, so there is no benefit to change it, in my > opinion, if label is readable and follows generic convention > (underscores). Of course someone might treat its readability different > and maybe for someone the missing "s" at the end is important. That must be me. > I am just > saying that, unlike the node names, the label has little impact/effect. > > However just be clear - this change also does not harm, so I am > perfectly fine with it. Okay, I'd prefer to have it :) - Marijn
