On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 04:19:47PM +0100, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > 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 sounds like a good idea; yes please. Thanks, Mark. -- 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
