Messages in this thread | | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | Subject | Re: Patch prefix guidelines | Date | Wed, 17 Aug 2016 02:57:27 +0200 |
| |
On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 05:32:15 PM Darren Hart wrote: > Question specifically to other maintainers, do we have a preferred patch prefix > rule set? > > To date I try to use a subsystem prefix (with slashes) when a patch updates > multiple drivers or the subsystem Kconfig files,. e.g. > > platform/x86: Drop duplicate dependencies on X86 > > (but I also see things like "platform: x86:") > > When a specific driver is involved, I prefer to mention that specific file (or a > subset of the affected files). For example: > > intel-hid: Remove duplicated acpi_remove_notify_handler > > However, a patch just landed for a particular file that I have not managed a > patch for since I've maintained platform-drivers-x86. Its history is horribly > inconsistent: > > $ git log --oneline --no-decorate drivers/platform/x86/intel_pmic_gpio.c > 3769a89 platform: x86: intel-pmic: use gpiochip data pointer > 58383c7 gpio: change member .dev to .parent > 3493f41 platform: x86: drop owner assignment from platform_drivers > 88d5e52 driver:gpio remove all usage of gpio_remove retval in driver > 21a3542 platform-drivers-x86: intel_pmic_gpio: Fix off-by-one valid offset range > check > fef8ce16 x86 platform drivers: fix gpio leak > b859f15 Drivers: platform: x86: remove __dev* attributes. > 9a2ffd1 intel_pmic_gpio: Convert printks to pr_<level> > 21a8d02 x86 platform drivers: Build fix for intel_pmic_gpio > 65d7ac03 platform-drivers: x86: pmic: Restore the dropped buslock/unlock > dced35a drivers: Final irq namespace conversion > 98401ae platform-drivers: x86: pmic: Use request_irq instead of chained handler > d4b7de6 platform-drivers: x86: pmic: Use irq_chip buslock mechanism > cb8e5e6 platform-drivers: x86: Convert pmic to new irq_chip functions > 180e9d1 platform-drivers: x86: pmic: Fix up bogus irq hackery > 456dc30 [PATCH] intel_pmic_gpio: modify EOI handling following change of kernel > irq subsystem > 61d8e11 Remove duplicate includes from many files > 4119617 intel_pmic_gpio: fix off-by-one value range checking > ffcfff3 intel_pmic_gpio: swap the bits and mask args for > intel_scu_ipc_update_register > 8950778 gpio: Add PMIC GPIO block support > > I don't want to impose arbitrary rules on my contributors, nor do I want to > contribute to an inconsistent git log. In this case, my default would be to > apply the incoming patch (which touches only the one file) as: > > intel_pmic_gpio: Make explicitly non-modular > > Thoughts? Preferences?
I generally use the following conventions:
"ACPI / what: " for the ACPI core "PM / what: " for the PM core "cpufreq: " for the cpufreq core "cpufreq: which driver: " for cpufreq drivers (although intel_pstate or cpufreq-dt can go without the "cpufreq: " prefix, because they are not ambiguous anyway) "cpuidle: " for the cpuidle core "cpuidle: which driver: " for cpuidle drivers (again, intel_idle is a bit of an exception here)
and so on.
If I were you, I'd use "platform/x86: " or "platform/x86: which driver: " as that clearly identifies the subsystem.
Thanks, Rafael
| |