linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] dt-bindings: spi: Convert cadence-quadspi.txt to cadence-quadspi.yaml

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

Message-ID: <20210401141328.GH4758@sirena.org.uk>
Date:   Thu, 1 Apr 2021 15:13:28 +0100
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     Pratyush Yadav <p.yadav@...com>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
        Tero Kristo <kristo@...nel.org>, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] dt-bindings: spi: Convert cadence-quadspi.txt to
 cadence-quadspi.yaml

On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 01:09:32AM +0530, Pratyush Yadav wrote:

> I did take a look by running git log on 
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/ and there is no single style 
> being used. Using "dt-bindings: spi:" is a popular choice. Some other 
> commits just use "spi:". And then some use "spi: dt-bindings:". The last 
> commit to touch cadence-quadspi.txt (fcebca39938f) used the prefix 
> "dt-bindings: spi:".

Yes, lots of people pick unfortunate subject lines for DT patches - that
doesn't mean it's good.  I'm looking to see spi: same as for all other
SPI patches.

> So on the prefix front I think the subject is good enough. Of course, if 
> you have any other preference then it can be re-worded but let's first 
> be clear on what the expectation is. And then let's make sure to apply 
> it to all future patches uniformly. This way future contributors won't 
> have to take a guess on what the expected prefix is.

I do edit some percentage of patches, but some do slip through for
various reasons.  There's also some things that just get completely
missed, especially if there isn't also a code patch nearby.

> Apart from the prefix is there anything else to improve? IMHO the 
> subject is good enough but I'm open to suggestions.

There was the thing with constraints.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)