Hi, On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 23:17:56 +0200 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 14/04/2023 17:54, Andreas Kemnade wrote: > > On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 17:28:49 +0200 > > Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On 14/04/2023 07:53, Andreas Kemnade wrote: > >>> Document ROHM BD2606MVV LED driver devicetree bindings. > >> > >> Subject: no improvements and no comments from your side. Why? > >> > > old subject (v2): > > > > dt-bindings: leds: ROHM BD2606MVV LED driver > > > > Your comment: > > Subject: maybe drop "driver" (suggests it is for Linux drivers, although > > maybe it matches the actual hardware here?) and add missing verb, e.g. > > "Add ROHM ..." > > > > New Subject (v3/4): > > dt-bindings: leds: Add ROHM BD2606MVV LED driver > > > > What is still missing? > > There is still "driver". Comment was: drop "driver". Where is it dropped? > > If you do not agree, sure, just respond with something. > I am fine with both. On one hand BD2606MVV is not a LED by itself but LEDs can be connected to it. so the chip itself can be called LED driver. But on the other hand I think that holds true for everything in drivers/leds and binding/leds and we do not call the subsystem leddriver. So there are reasons for and against "driver" in the subject line. Regards, Andreas
