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

Hello Heiko,

On 2024-08-08 09:54, Heiko Stübner wrote:

Am Dienstag, 6. August 2024, 18:34:41 CEST schrieb Detlev Casanova:

quoted

On Sunday, 4 August 2024 05:56:39 EDT Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

quoted

On 02/08/2024 17:14, Detlev Casanova wrote:

quoted

From: Finley Xiao <redacted>

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

quoted

Signed-off-by: Finley Xiao <redacted>
[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.

quoted

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?