Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] dt-bindings: leds: Add ROHM BD2606MVV LED driver

[Andreas Kemnade <andreas@kemnade.info>]

Hi,

On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 23:17:56 +0200
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:

> On 14/04/2023 17:54, Andreas Kemnade wrote:
> > On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 17:28:49 +0200
> > Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
> >   
> >> On 14/04/2023 07:53, Andreas Kemnade wrote:  
> >>> Document ROHM BD2606MVV LED driver devicetree bindings.    
> >>
> >> Subject: no improvements and no comments from your side. Why?
> >>  
> > old subject (v2):
> > 
> > dt-bindings: leds: ROHM BD2606MVV LED driver
> > 
> > Your comment:
> > Subject: maybe drop "driver" (suggests it is for Linux drivers, although
> > maybe it matches the actual hardware here?) and add missing verb, e.g.
> > "Add ROHM ..."
> > 
> > New Subject (v3/4):
> > dt-bindings: leds: Add ROHM BD2606MVV LED driver
> > 
> > What is still missing?  
> 
> There is still "driver". Comment was: drop "driver". Where is it dropped?
> 
> If you do not agree, sure, just respond with something.
> 
I am fine with both. On one hand BD2606MVV is not a LED by itself
but LEDs can be connected to it. so the chip itself can be called LED driver.

But on the other hand I think that holds true for everything in drivers/leds
and binding/leds and we do not call the subsystem leddriver.
So there are reasons for and against "driver" in the subject line.

Regards,
Andreas