Re: [PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: Add power-domain header for RK3576 SoCs

["Heiko Stübner" <heiko@sntech.de>]

Am Donnerstag, 8. August 2024, 18:43:42 CEST schrieb Dragan Simic:
> Hello Heiko,
> 
> On 2024-08-08 09:54, Heiko Stübner wrote:
> > Am Dienstag, 6. August 2024, 18:34:41 CEST schrieb Detlev Casanova:
> >> On Sunday, 4 August 2024 05:56:39 EDT Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> > On 02/08/2024 17:14, Detlev Casanova wrote:
> >> > > From: Finley Xiao <finley.xiao@rock-chips.com>
> >> > >
> >> > > Define power domain IDs as described in the TRM.
> >> >
> >> > Please use subject prefixes matching the subsystem. You can get them for
> >> > example with `git log --oneline -- DIRECTORY_OR_FILE` on the directory
> >> > your patch is touching. For bindings, the preferred subjects are
> >> > explained here:
> >> > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patche
> >> > s.html#i-for-patch-submitters
> >> > > Signed-off-by: Finley Xiao <finley.xiao@rock-chips.com>
> >> > > [reword]
> >> > > Signed-off-by: Detlev Casanova <detlev.casanova@collabora.com>
> >> > > ---
> >> > >
> >> > >  include/dt-bindings/power/rk3576-power.h | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> > >  1 file changed, 30 insertions(+)
> >> > >  create mode 100644 include/dt-bindings/power/rk3576-power.h
> >> >
> >> > This is part of bindings.
> >> >
> >> > > diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/power/rk3576-power.h
> >> > > b/include/dt-bindings/power/rk3576-power.h
> >> > Missing vendor prefix. This should be named after compatible.
> >> 
> >> Looks like all other rockchip power bindings use the 
> >> include/dt-bindings/
> >> power/rkXXXX.h format. Should I keep that way ?
> > 
> > there is also rockchip,rv1126-power.h , so please follow Krzysztof's
> > suggestion. Older header namings need to stay the same of course
> > but that shouldn't keep us from updating naming schemes to better
> > work in new additions.
> 
> Actually, why don't we rename the old headers to follow the new naming 
> rules?
> Is there something preventing us from doing that, which I'm missing?

yes, the headers are _part_ of the actual devicetree-binding.
So you have out of tree users in the BSDs or whereever else.