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 <javier.marti...@collabora.co.uk>
Following the discussion around [1], this makes sense to me, so: Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutl...@arm.com> Mark. [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/54356666.4090...@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 > > devicet...@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 > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
