Message ID | 20240802151647.294307-1-detlev.casanova@collabora.com |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | Add power-controller support for rk3576 | expand |
Am Donnerstag, 8. August 2024, 18:43:42 CEST schrieb Dragan Simic: > Hello Heiko, > > On 2024-08-08 09:54, Heiko Stübner wrote: > > Am Dienstag, 6. August 2024, 18:34:41 CEST schrieb Detlev Casanova: > >> On Sunday, 4 August 2024 05:56:39 EDT Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >> > On 02/08/2024 17:14, Detlev Casanova wrote: > >> > > From: Finley Xiao <finley.xiao@rock-chips.com> > >> > > > >> > > Define power domain IDs as described in the TRM. > >> > > >> > Please use subject prefixes matching the subsystem. You can get them for > >> > example with `git log --oneline -- DIRECTORY_OR_FILE` on the directory > >> > your patch is touching. For bindings, the preferred subjects are > >> > explained here: > >> > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patche > >> > s.html#i-for-patch-submitters > >> > > Signed-off-by: Finley Xiao <finley.xiao@rock-chips.com> > >> > > [reword] > >> > > Signed-off-by: Detlev Casanova <detlev.casanova@collabora.com> > >> > > --- > >> > > > >> > > include/dt-bindings/power/rk3576-power.h | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> > > 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+) > >> > > create mode 100644 include/dt-bindings/power/rk3576-power.h > >> > > >> > This is part of bindings. > >> > > >> > > diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/power/rk3576-power.h > >> > > b/include/dt-bindings/power/rk3576-power.h > >> > Missing vendor prefix. This should be named after compatible. > >> > >> Looks like all other rockchip power bindings use the > >> include/dt-bindings/ > >> power/rkXXXX.h format. Should I keep that way ? > > > > there is also rockchip,rv1126-power.h , so please follow Krzysztof's > > suggestion. Older header namings need to stay the same of course > > but that shouldn't keep us from updating naming schemes to better > > work in new additions. > > Actually, why don't we rename the old headers to follow the new naming > rules? > Is there something preventing us from doing that, which I'm missing? yes, the headers are _part_ of the actual devicetree-binding. So you have out of tree users in the BSDs or whereever else.