Re: [PATCH 8/8] dt: cpufreq: st: Provide bindings for ST's CPUFreq implementation

[Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>]

On Tue, 23 Jun 2015, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:

> Hello Lee and Viresh,
> 
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, 23 Jun 2015, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> >> On 23-06-15, 08:06, Lee Jones wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Over that, this patch should have been present before any other
> >> > > patches using these bindings.
> >> >
> >> > I've never heard that one before, but it's easy to re-order the set.
> >>
> >> I don't know, but it seems obvious to me: Bindings first and then the
> >> code.
> >
> > Do you always write your documentation before implementing a
> > feature?
> >
> > Surely it goes;
> >   Requirements Gathering
> >   Plan and Prepare
> >   Implement
> >   Test
> >   Document
> >   Deliver
> >
> > ;)
> >
> > ... but as I say, I can re-order if required.  It's really not a problem.
> >
> 
> This is actually documented in
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.txt:
> ...
> 
>   3) The Documentation/ portion of the patch should come in the series before
>      the code implementing the binding.
> 
> ....
> 
> The rationale AFAIU is that it is easier to review the implementation
> of a binding after reading the DT binding doc since then you can see
> if the code matches what the DT binding describes.

Fair enough.  Can't argue with that. :)

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog