From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Rutland Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] Documentation: dt-bindings: Explain order in patch series Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 10:25:52 +0100 Message-ID: <20141014092552.GG16598@leverpostej> References: <1412879047-24138-1-git-send-email-javier.martinez@collabora.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1412879047-24138-1-git-send-email-javier.martinez@collabora.co.uk> Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Javier Martinez Canillas Cc: "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "broonie@kernel.org" , "jason@lakedaemon.net" , "grant.likely@linaro.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 07:24:07PM +0100, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > When posting a patch series that includes both code implementing a > Device Tree binding and its associated documentation, the DT docs > should come in the series before the implementation. > > This not only avoids checkpatch.pl to complain about undocumented > bindings but also makes the review process easier. > > Document this convention since it may not be obvious. > > Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas Following the discussion around [1], this makes sense to me, so: Acked-by: Mark Rutland Mark. [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/54356666.4090003@collabora.co.uk > --- > > Changes since v1: > - Small typo error, sorry for the noise. > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.txt | 3 +++ > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.txt > index 042a027..b7ba01a 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.txt > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.txt > @@ -12,6 +12,9 @@ I. For patch submitters > > devicetree@vger.kernel.org > > + 3) The Documentation/ portion of the patch should come in the series before > + the code implementing the binding. > + > II. For kernel maintainers > > 1) If you aren't comfortable reviewing a given binding, reply to it and ask > -- > 2.1.0 > >