On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hello Rob, > > On 04/03/2017 11:25 AM, Rob Herring wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 02:25:31PM -0400, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: >>> The driver contains compatible strings for different models, but the DT >>> binding doc only lists one of them. Add the remaining to the document. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> >>> .../devicetree/bindings/input/touchscreen/silead_gsl1680.txt | 7 ++++++- >>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> "dt-bindings: input: ..." is preferred for the subject, but no need to >> respin just for that. >> > > Can we document it in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.txt? Yes. Actually, I was thinking of adding the preferred prefixes to MAINTAINERS. Then checkpatch.pl could check it perhaps. > I'm asking because is true that at the beginning we used "dt-bindings: foo" for > all DT bindings patches but then many (most?) maintainers started asking for the > subsystem subject line to be used for both drivers and DT bindings docs since > they would be merging both and also they could miss the DT bindings patches if > their subsystem prefix was not used. I'd argue that most subsys maintainers don't (or they just change it when applying). Mark B does the most. I'm not going to waste any time arguing over it if folks want something different. I'm mainly trying to get rid of subjects like "Documentation: devicetree: bindings: Document the DT binding for foo-bar". :) Rob -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
