Re: [PATCH] media: i2c: imx334: Fix an error message

[Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>]

On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 02:08:04PM +0200, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> Hi Dan,
> 
> On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 02:04:48PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > The "ret" variable is uninitialized in this error message.
> > 
> > Fixes: 9746b11715c3 ("media: i2c: Add imx334 camera sensor driver")
> > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
> 
> Thanks for the patch. This has been already addressed by a patch from Hans
> (but not merged yet):
> 
> <URL:https://patchwork.linuxtv.org/project/linux-media/patch/917ccfef-b93e-4d90-0b5a-4974145ab187@xs4all.nl/>
> 
> > ---
> > When new drivers are merged into the kernel, then could we use the
> > driver prefix?  In other words something like this:
> > 
> > media: i2c/imx334: Add imx334 camera sensor driver
> 
> We've usually had driver's name and Mauro's scripts add media: prefix ---
> unless it's already there. Are you suggesting also the bus should be part
> of it?

No, what I'm saying is when people add a new driver they do:

[PATCH] subsystem: Add new driver for foo345

But it would be better if they added "foo345" to the prefix.

[PATCH] subsystem: foo345: Add new driver for foo345

Doing it the way that I'm suggesting has become more common for the past
four years.  Four years ago was when I started complaining that I can't
guess the correct prefix for new drivers.  That was also the last time
that someone complained to me that I had used the incorrect patch prefix.
I would argue that Hans used the wrong patch prefix for his patch so
maybe we have just become more mellow these days.

And also I'm surprised that Mauro adds the media: prefix for you instead
of making everyone do it themselves...  He's the only person who does
this that I know of.

regards,
dan carpenter