Hi Matheus,
Am 07.03.20 um 01:24 schrieb Matheus Castello:
The Caninos Loucos Program develops Single Board Computers with an open
structure. The Program wants to form a community of developers to use
the IoT technology and disseminate the learning of embedded systems in
I would suggest "IoT technologies" without "the".
Brazil.
The boards are designed and manufactured by LSI-TEC NPO.
Signed-off-by: Matheus Castello <matheus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml
index 9e67944bec9c..3e974dd563cf 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml
@@ -167,6 +167,8 @@ patternProperties:
ÂÂÂÂÂ description: Calxeda
ÂÂÂ "^capella,.*":
ÂÂÂÂÂ description: Capella Microsystems, Inc
+Â "^caninos,.*":
+ÂÂÂ description: Caninos Loucos LSI-TEC NPO
Alphabetical order: n goes before p.
I'm confused by the description... Either this Caninos Loucos is an independent vendor and gets its own prefix, or it's LSI-Tec and uses something like lsi-tec,caninosloucos-foo. Please clarify commit message and/or description line, at least by inserting something like "program by", "brand by" or the like rather than just concatenating names. Maybe compare UDOO by SECO. Is caninos,foo unique enough or should it be caninosloucos,foo? (crazy canines?)
Note that I usually attempt to CC the organizations I'm assigning a vendor prefix for. Do you represent them or coordinated with them?
Regards,
Andreas
ÂÂÂ "^cascoda,.*":
ÂÂÂÂÂ description: Cascoda, Ltd.
ÂÂÂ "^catalyst,.*":