linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Input: silead - list all supported compatible strings in binding document

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 3 Apr 2017 17:23:01 -0400
From:   Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@....samsung.com>
To:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Robert Dolca <robert.dolca@...el.com>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
        "linux-input@...r.kernel.org" <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Input: silead - list all supported compatible strings in
 binding document

Hello Rob,

On 04/03/2017 05:15 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas
> <javier@....samsung.com> 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@....samsung.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>>  .../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.
>

That would be great.

>> 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". :)
>

Yeah, I don't have a strong opinion. I just want an authoritative doc
so I can refer subsystems maintainers to when they argue that I should
use their subsystem prefix instead of "dt-bindings: foo: ..." :)

> Rob
> 

Best regards,
-- 
Javier Martinez Canillas
Open Source Group
Samsung Research America