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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Thu, 09 Oct 2014 17:19:47 +0200
From:	Javier Martinez Canillas <javier.martinez@...labora.co.uk>
To:	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
CC:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	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-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] regulator: of: Add regulator-initial-mode parse support

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'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.
> 
> Having a separate patch for the binding is very helpful for those of us
> doing review. For one thing it helps us to find the binding document,
> which can be important when a driver is thousands of lines long. For
> another it means that we can be clear that our Acked-by, Reviewed-by,
> etc apply to the binding and not necessarily the rest of the code.
> 

Agreed.

> For small patches, this is obviously less of a concern.
> 
> Thanks,
> Mark.
> 

Best regards,
Javier
--
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/