linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] regulator: of: Add regulator-initial-mode parse support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <54356666.4090003@collabora.co.uk>
Date:	Wed, 08 Oct 2014 18:29:26 +0200
From:	Javier Martinez Canillas <javier.martinez@...labora.co.uk>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
CC:	Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
	Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>,
	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
	Chris Zhong <zyw@...k-chips.com>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>,
	Abhilash Kesavan <kesavan.abhilash@...il.com>,
	linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] regulator: of: Add regulator-initial-mode parse support

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 linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/