linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] dt-bindings: leds: Add ROHM BD2606MVV LED driver

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: <20230416232549.3b0a5eed@aktux>
Date:   Sun, 16 Apr 2023 23:25:49 +0200
From:   Andreas Kemnade <andreas@...nade.info>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc:     pavel@....cz, lee@...nel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, linux-leds@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] dt-bindings: leds: Add ROHM BD2606MVV LED driver

Hi,

On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 23:17:56 +0200
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> wrote:

> On 14/04/2023 17:54, Andreas Kemnade wrote:
> > On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 17:28:49 +0200
> > Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> 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