[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190919152326.GP3642@sirena.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2019 16:23:33 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Gareth Williams <gareth.williams.jx@...esas.com>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Phil Edworthy <phil.edworthy@...esas.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
"linux-spi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] spi: dw: Add basic runtime PM support
On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 03:14:54PM +0000, Gareth Williams wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2019 at 14:31:32AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Please use subject lines matching the style for the subsystem. This makes it
> > easier for people to identify relevant patches. This isn't even consistent
> > within the series :(
> Sorry about that, I will correct the subject lines for V3.
Don't worry about it unless you need to send a v3 for some other reason.
> Is there a set convention for the subsystem I should follow in future?
> Or should I follow the style of the individual files I work on?
Following the style for the file/directory is generally a good guide,
for SPI I tend to prefer spi: but I just moan about it rather than block
anything for it (unless I do end up missing the patch in my inbox).
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists