From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.manjaro.org (mail.manjaro.org [116.203.91.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81F7B18DB0C; Fri, 7 Feb 2025 17:12:13 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=116.203.91.91 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1738948335; cv=none; b=RUzr4NaP/BM/SS6mjS0bA7BUkg+Qvv4KX9bVmL4YsgAr7PMsE6DQE5ZSlirb8W5G5hi1PGb1WDGdlW5MDe3bxF+Xw9duN2h3zKaPUqnNFipZK0t7AnhNZwJeejcPfbYfmSD4DCTsplVgv9RAol4DklckPt92e1b3lfw/4+iJ06M= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1738948335; c=relaxed/simple; bh=rmz2f/r0nmLppAgxLqGAFpZzsm5putBHWW8XfcW2Vok=; h=MIME-Version:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Message-ID:Content-Type; b=G4+H6kDyq6JBQSrYuayqiK8tl7BikBDwrvjEKfTMnukeeCBaM6JQ+i+bpVrnlfd+r8sk0aPi5psHUue5WIvt2uYqYScEkl8n5Xwj3vb7jqv4Jb9uLIPxaevJNyXAepBG0ua0UfKiPlkkazrk3VNXX5TL0aJ6VlEKjucAeL5uNmA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=manjaro.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=manjaro.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=manjaro.org header.i=@manjaro.org header.b=V5/suE0s; arc=none smtp.client-ip=116.203.91.91 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=manjaro.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=manjaro.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=manjaro.org header.i=@manjaro.org header.b="V5/suE0s" Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=manjaro.org; s=2021; t=1738948331; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=TJez20VszaxXxj16JRKu4nw9gm00N8RRdq6k9u0AALs=; b=V5/suE0s6oboVud4LDBpamVYDrXqsi8RJPxWLTE2+OK9RWMpYDTiGsmDcSVqaI3eWFAz4h 4gKGUmUH0lriTYz6mztqG53hyQadYcUVIBq2OfILB90liak70DL9Rk2OiSI6CNflipScd4 PPtIqyvwPkfP1Zuioojr8i7tFgGcbscIdQubYhwO5xrQRUH5PnZ9BI4/15+h4fJgqKGn0R Pumgn53Y2HSZ5pOkiIZTp0SEz3u2zWAcnMMpru4gbCFn3V9mEpMCoZobzcoZuq8ETUuAyQ 1BoJc/fDRKh6YHfHIUmZ0NvUcRB1pep8rK/8vX/P6b7ICZdmZVXZMjqq8Bzq6A== Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2025 18:12:10 +0100 From: Dragan Simic To: Diederik de Haas Cc: Rob Herring , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Conor Dooley , Heiko Stuebner , Maximilian Weigand , Marek Kraus , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] arm64: dts: rockchip: add 'chassis-type' property on PineNote In-Reply-To: References: <20250207111157.297276-1-didi.debian@cknow.org> <502523554b482a2e10d85d37761932a0@manjaro.org> Message-ID: <97df4fc0db4bf43a2a3f2d4d110e3105@manjaro.org> X-Sender: dsimic@manjaro.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Authentication-Results: ORIGINATING; auth=pass smtp.auth=dsimic@manjaro.org smtp.mailfrom=dsimic@manjaro.org On 2025-02-07 17:39, Diederik de Haas wrote: > On Fri Feb 7, 2025 at 4:01 PM CET, Dragan Simic wrote: >> On 2025-02-07 12:11, Diederik de Haas wrote: >>> Add the recommended chassis-type root node property so userspace can >>> request the form factor and adjust their behavior accordingly. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Diederik de Haas >>> Link: >>> https://github.com/devicetree-org/devicetree-specification/blob/main/source/chapter3-devicenodes.rst#root-node >> >> Maybe the Link tag should be converted into a "[1]" reference? >> To me, this is more like a reference for this DT addition. >> >> In general, references can also be placed closer to the contents >> they back up, which isn't possible with Link tags, but of course >> that doesn't matter much in this case. > > I generally use the "[1]" format when linking to specific claims, which > I could've done wrt the "recommended". But I considered this a general > background link and then I prefer to do it via a Link tag. > > If requested by a maintainer I'll change it ofc, but otherwise I prefer > to keep it as is. Indeed, in this case it's pretty much irrelevant which format is used. In fact, it may look nicer to use a Link tag, because there are only a few lines in the patch description in total. :) My comment was more about longer commit/patch descriptions with multiple references, which should benefit from placing references closer to the backed-up contents using the "[*]" layout, instead of relying on Link tags to bunch it all together at the end of the description.