On Nov 6, 2013, at 11:32 AM, Jason Cooper wrote: > Signed-off-by: Jason Cooper <jason@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > All, > > Since I've now had to answer this question a couple of times, I thought it > might be worth trying to put it in a document. I don't like long documents, so > this is pretty concise, and most likely wrong. Hence, RFC. :) > > I also dislike quoting people from my imperfect memory, much better to have an > agreed upon document we can point people towards. > > thx, > > Jason. > > .../devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.txt | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 52 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.txt > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.txt > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..5a84d5ebb0f5 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.txt > @@ -0,0 +1,52 @@ > + > + Submitting devicetree (DT) binding patches > + > +I. For patch submitters > + > + 0) Normal patch submission rules from Documentation/SubmittingPatches > + applies. > + > + 1) The Documentation/ portion of the patch should be a separate patch > + and clearly labelled as such. For example: > + > + [PATCH X/Y] dt: binding: mvebu mbus driver > + > + This makes the binding portion easy to find among large patch series. > + > + 2) Submit the entire series to the devicetree mailinglist at > + > + devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > + > +II. For sub-system maintainers > + > + 1) If you aren't comfortable reviewing a given binding, reply to it and ask > + the devicetree maintainers for guidance. This will help them prioritize > + which ones to review and which ones are ok to let go. > + > + 2) If you are comfortable with the binding, and it hasn't received an > + Acked-by from the devicetree maintainers after a few weeks, go ahead and > + take it. > + > + 3) For a series going though multiple trees, the binding patch should be > + kept with the driver using the binding. > + > +III. General binding rules > + > + 1) Don't hold up a binding because it isn't perfect. Who is that a statement to, the maintainers or the developer? Are just saying publish early for feedback or accept something that isn't perfect? > + > + 2) Use specific compatible strings so that if we need to add a feature (DMA) > + in the future, we can create a new compatible string. > + > + 3) Ideally, all bindings receive sufficient review. In the real world, we > + need to prioritize. Bindings for a specific block of IP aren't as > + critical as a binding for a common subsystem, like PCI. > + > + 4) Don't submit bindings for staging or unstable. That will be decided by > + the devicetree maintainers *after* discussion on the mailinglist. > + > +IV. Notes > + > + This document is intended as a general familiarization with the process as > + decided at the 2013 Kernel Summit. When in doubt, the current word of the > + devicetree maintainers overrules this document. In that situation, a patch > + updating this document would be appreciated. > -- > 1.8.4.2 > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
