Re: [RESEND PATCH 1/8] mfd: cros ec: Remove parent field

From: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier.martinez@collabora.co.uk>
To: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
Cc: Gwendal Grignou <gwendal@chromium.org>,
	Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>,
	Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>,
	Bill Richardson <wfrichar@chromium.org>,
	Simon Glass <sjg@google.com>,
	Stephen Barber <smbarber@chromium.org>,
	Filipe Brandenburger <filbranden@google.com>,
	Todd Broch <tbroch@chromium.org>,
	linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH 1/8] mfd: cros ec: Remove parent field
Date: Sat, 09 May 2015 03:38:08 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <554D6500.4070106@collabora.co.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150505105439.GB4047@x1>

Hello Lee,

On 05/05/2015 12:54 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Tue, 05 May 2015, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>> On 04/29/2015 12:37 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
>> > On Thu, 23 Apr 2015, Gwendal Grignou wrote:
>> > 
>> >> Be consistent, use cros_ec instead of "cros ec" or "cros-ec".
>> > 
>> > What is this in reference to?
>> >
>> 
>> I think Gwendal meant that I should be consistent in general and was not
>> referring to this patch particular.
> 
> Better to quote one of the offending occurrences than to randomly
> top-post helpful comments.
> 

Just for clarification, on a second read I noticed that Gwendal was talking
about the subject line since $subject uses "mfd: cros ec" as a prefix while
most of the commits in the subsystem (and in the series) use "mfd: cros_ec".
Also, there is another patch (5/8) that used "mfd: cros-ec" so he is right
that I should had used cros_ec consistently.

Sorry for missing that and I will fix when posting v2.

Best regards,
Javier