On 10/08/2014 05:12 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 04:38:53PM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: >> On 10/08/2014 04:25 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > >> > That doesn't mean that the definition of those modes is something we can >> > sensibly provide in generic code, especially in a completely >> > undocumented fashion (perhaps you've done that later in the patch series >> > but bisection also applies to reviewability). > >> As a general question, now that the convention is for DT binding docs to go >> in a separate patch, should the DT documentation be added before or after >> that code using these bindings is added? > > It fairly obviously needs to go before so that reviewers can tell if the > code is actually implementing the binding. > 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? 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. Anyways, thanks for letting me know what is the convention today. -- 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
