From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Javier Martinez Canillas Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] regulator: of: Add regulator-initial-mode parse support Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2014 17:19:47 +0200 Message-ID: <5436A793.6090204@collabora.co.uk> References: <1412775847-15213-1-git-send-email-javier.martinez@collabora.co.uk> <1412775847-15213-2-git-send-email-javier.martinez@collabora.co.uk> <20141008142511.GA4609@sirena.org.uk> <54354C7D.7090104@collabora.co.uk> <20141008151220.GE4609@sirena.org.uk> <54356666.4090003@collabora.co.uk> <20141009102717.GG3869@leverpostej> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20141009102717.GG3869@leverpostej> Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Mark Rutland Cc: Mark Brown , Doug Anderson , Chanwoo Choi , Olof Johansson , Chris Zhong , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Abhilash Kesavan , "linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org 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