On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 1:29 AM Madalin-cristian Bucur
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

-----Original Message-----
From: Li Yang [mailto:leoyang.li@nxp.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 2, 2018 1:30 AM
To: Madalin-cristian Bucur <madalin.bucur@nxp.com>
Cc: Roy Pledge <roy.pledge@nxp.com>; Claudiu Manoil
[off-list ref]; Catalin Marinas [off-list ref]; Scott
Wood [off-list ref]; moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM
ARCHITECTURE [off-list ref]; linuxppc-dev
[off-list ref]; lkml [off-list ref]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] soc/fsl/qbman: DPAA QBMan fixes and additions

On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 3:44 AM Madalin Bucur [off-list ref]
wrote:

quoted

Applied 1-4 to for-next while waiting for clarification on 5/5.   And
updated the prefix to "soc: fsl:" style to be aligned with arm-soc
convention.  Please try to use that style in the future for soc/fsl
patches.

Thank you, I've sent an email about the APIs.
I'm not sure we need to align the prefix to arm-soc as the soc/fsl does not
service only ARM but also PPC based SoCs and historically we've been using
the soc/* format.

There is no kernel wide guideline about the format of subsystem prefix
in the patch subject. Different subsystems have their own
preferrences.  Soc is not considered as a separate subsystem, so we
followed the convention of the architectural subsystem that we merge
patches through.  Since we normally get soc patches through the
arm-soc tree right now, I think it would be better to follow the
convention of arm-soc to make them not looking too different in the
arm-soc pull requests.  Not sure how sensetive ARM-SOC maintainers
feel about this though.

Regards,
Leo