Re: [PATCH 1/5] regulator: of: Add regulator-initial-mode parse support

[Javier Martinez Canillas]

Hello Mark,

On 10/09/2014 12:27 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> 
>> Well, is not fairly obvious to me. One can also say the opposite, why the
>> kernel is documenting a DT binding that is not (currently) implemented?
> 
> Checkpatch will complain regarding undocumented bindings, so from a
> pragmatic point of view the binding must come first.
>
> Personally, when I read a patch series I do an initial pass in-order,
> and having the binding first makes things clearer. I might have some
> questions regarding the binding that the driver answers later, and it makes it
> easier to spot undocumented properties or conventions used by the
> driver. Doing so the other way around usually leaves me with more
> questions at the end.
>

Thanks a lot for the explanation, it certainly makes sense then to have
the DT binding before. I'll propose a patch to add that information to
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.txt so people
(like me) who didn't find it obvious can know what the convention is.
 
>> That's why what makes the most sense for me is what the old convention did,
>> add the DT binding docs in the same patch that implements the binding.
> 
> Having a separate patch for the binding is very helpful for those of us
> doing review. For one thing it helps us to find the binding document,
> which can be important when a driver is thousands of lines long. For
> another it means that we can be clear that our Acked-by, Reviewed-by,
> etc apply to the binding and not necessarily the rest of the code.
> 

Agreed.

> For small patches, this is obviously less of a concern.
> 
> Thanks,
> Mark.
> 

Best regards,
Javier
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/