On Tue, Nov 01, 2022 at 11:52:23PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: > On 11/1/22 23:44, Luiz Augusto von Dentz wrote: > > Hi Marek, > > Hi, > > > 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. > > Linux Documentation/devicetree/bindings seems to start with dt-bindings: > prefix always, so maybe we should keep it that way ? Yes.
