Re: [PATCH] Input: silead - list all supported compatible strings in binding document

Hello Rob,

On 04/03/2017 05:15 PM, Rob Herring wrote:

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Hello Rob,

On 04/03/2017 11:25 AM, Rob Herring wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 02:25:31PM -0400, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:

quoted

The driver contains compatible strings for different models, but the DT
binding doc only lists one of them. Add the remaining to the document.

Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <redacted>
---

 .../devicetree/bindings/input/touchscreen/silead_gsl1680.txt       | 7 ++++++-
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

"dt-bindings: input: ..." is preferred for the subject, but no need to
respin just for that.

Can we document it in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.txt?

Yes. Actually, I was thinking of adding the preferred prefixes to
MAINTAINERS. Then checkpatch.pl could check it perhaps.

That would be great.

quoted

I'm asking because is true that at the beginning we used "dt-bindings: foo" for
all DT bindings patches but then many (most?) maintainers started asking for the
subsystem subject line to be used for both drivers and DT bindings docs since
they would be merging both and also they could miss the DT bindings patches if
their subsystem prefix was not used.

I'd argue that most subsys maintainers don't (or they just change it
when applying). Mark B does the most. I'm not going to waste any time
arguing over it if folks want something different. I'm mainly trying
to get rid of subjects like "Documentation: devicetree: bindings:
Document the DT binding for foo-bar". :)

Yeah, I don't have a strong opinion. I just want an authoritative doc
so I can refer subsystems maintainers to when they argue that I should
use their subsystem prefix instead of "dt-bindings: foo: ..." :)

Rob

Best regards,
-- 
Javier Martinez Canillas
Open Source Group
Samsung Research America