Messages in this thread | | | From | Li Yang <> | Date | Tue, 2 Oct 2018 14:45:32 -0500 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] soc/fsl/qbman: DPAA QBMan fixes and additions |
| |
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 1:29 AM Madalin-cristian Bucur <madalin.bucur@nxp.com> wrote: > > > -----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 > > <claudiu.manoil@nxp.com>; Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>; Scott > > Wood <oss@buserror.net>; moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM > > ARCHITECTURE <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>; linuxppc-dev > > <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org> > > 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 <madalin.bucur@nxp.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > 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
| |