Re: [PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: Add power-domain header for RK3576 SoCs

[Heiko Stübner]

Hi Detlev,

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > [reword]
> > > Signed-off-by: Detlev Casanova <detlev.casanova@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > 
> > >  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.