Hi Marek, On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 3:38 PM Marek Vasut <marex@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 10/31/22 23:07, bluez.test.bot@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > > This is automated email and please do not reply to this email! > > > > Dear submitter, > > > > Thank you for submitting the patches to the linux bluetooth mailing list. > > This is a CI test results with your patch series: > > PW Link:https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/bluetooth/list/?series=690631 > > > > ---Test result--- > > > > Test Summary: > > CheckPatch PASS 2.99 seconds > > GitLint PASS 1.48 seconds > > SubjectPrefix FAIL 0.58 seconds > > Should the DT bindings really have Bluetooth: prefix/tag too ? > git log on prior art indicates they shouldn't . If it is meant for bluetooth-next then yes it shall contain it since the CI does attempt to check its presence, in the other hand we could perhaps use the prefix [bluetooth] to avoid having the CI run on patches that are not meant for bluetooth-next but I don't think other subsystem do require this so it sort of hard to enforce proper prefixing. -- Luiz Augusto von Dentz
