From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: t.figa@samsung.com (Tomasz Figa) Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2013 17:02:02 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v9 07/16] iommu/exynos: support for device tree In-Reply-To: References: <002b01ce941b$160a88a0$421f99e0$@samsung.com> <20130809153730.83d3a5ba419def5424bcbb0e@samsung.com> Message-ID: <33568604.vCtP4hvQ1q@amdc1227> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Friday 09 of August 2013 08:28:09 Rob Herring wrote: > On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 1:37 AM, Cho KyongHo wrote: > > On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 00:41:25 +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote: > >> Hi KyongHo, > >> > >> On Thursday 08 of August 2013 18:38:49 Cho KyongHo wrote: > >> > This commit adds device tree support for System MMU. > >> > This also include the following changes and enhancements: > >> > > >> > * use managed device helper functions. > >> > Simplyfies System MMU device driver. > >> > > >> > * use only a single clock descriptor. > >> > System MMU device descriptor is seperate if it is imposible to make > >> > a single clock descriptor to make a device descriptor for a group of > >> > System MMUs. > >> > > >> > * removed dbgname member from sysmmu_drvdata structure. > >> > debugging kernel message for a System MMU is distinguisheable with > >> > the > >> > name of device descroptors. > >> > >> Please put all these three changes in separate patches. This patch is > >> hard to review with all the changes mixed together... > > Agreed. > > > Ok. > > > >> In addition, I believe this is the patch that should be adding device > >> tree binding documentation, not the 6/16 one, as this is where > >> actually support for this binding gets added to the kernel. > > > > Oh, I didn't know that devicetree binding description and > > implementation need to be in the same patch. > > I will do as you advised. > > Actually, I prefer the binding docs be separate patches. The reason > being so we can get closer to having them in a separate repository. > Also, then the binding can be acked separately from the kernel > implementation using the binding. OK. This is a good point. So maybe let's fully define this order to be as following (and have first best practice for the DT binding best practices that need to be defined): Bindings documentation should be added with a separate patch, before any user of these bindings is introduced. What do you think? Best regards, Tomasz