netdev - Re: [PATCH v3] dt-bindings: cleanup: fix duplicated 'is is' in YAML docs

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]

Message-ID: <8f4358e8-ecd6-4d86-8326-25d21c3a4ea2@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2025 22:38:14 +0530
From: Sanjay Suthar <sanjaysuthar661996@...il.com>
To: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-amlogic@...ts.infradead.org,
 ribalda@...nel.org, dlechner@...libre.com, nuno.sa@...log.com,
 andy@...nel.org, robh@...nel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org, conor+dt@...nel.org,
 andrew+netdev@...n.ch, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
 kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, neil.armstrong@...aro.org,
 khilman@...libre.com, jbrunet@...libre.com,
 martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] dt-bindings: cleanup: fix duplicated 'is is' in YAML
 docs

On 24/07/25 15:42, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2025 22:35:13 +0530
> Sanjay Suthar <sanjaysuthar661996@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> Fix minor grammatical issues by removing duplicated "is" in two devicetree
>> binding documents:
>>
>> - net/amlogic,meson-dwmac.yaml
>> - iio/dac/ti,dac7612.yaml
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sanjay Suthar <sanjaysuthar661996@...il.com>
> I'd have no problem with the argument that this can go through either
> tree if there was any interaction between the files or the changes, but
> here there isn't. This is just causing potential mess if either tree ends
> up with other changes overlapping this for no benefit.  Please split into
> two patches, one for each subsystem.  You should be fine to keep the
> various tags given here for the new patches.

Thanks for the review. I understand your concern regarding splitting the 
changes. My intention was that, since the fix is a trivial and identical 
grammatical correction across both subsystems, it didn’t seem necessary 
to separate them.

However, I’m open to either approach — keeping it as a single patch or 
splitting it if that's preferred. As I’m still new to this process, I’ll 
defer to @krzysztof and the DT maintainers for the final call on how 
this should be handled.

Please let me know the preferred direction, and I’ll be happy to update 
accordingly.

Best regards,

Sanjay Suthar