[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <35f6a3be-d924-403d-b60b-d4c78d833a60@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2025 16:18:31 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: James Clark <james.clark@...aro.org>
Cc: Frank Li <Frank.li@....com>, Clark Wang <xiaoning.wang@....com>,
Fugang Duan <B38611@...escale.com>, Gao Pan <pandy.gao@....com>,
Fugang Duan <fugang.duan@....com>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
Larisa Grigore <larisa.grigore@....nxp.com>,
Larisa Grigore <larisa.grigore@....com>,
Ghennadi Procopciuc <ghennadi.procopciuc@....com>,
Ciprianmarian Costea <ciprianmarian.costea@....com>, s32@....com,
linux-spi@...r.kernel.org, imx@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/13] spi: spi-fsl-lpspi: Add compatible for S32G
On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 03:31:08PM +0100, James Clark wrote:
> On 14/08/2025 7:25 pm, Frank Li wrote:
> > binding doc should first patch. Create new patch serial for add S32G
> > support only.
> I'm not sure putting the binding doc commit first would be right? That would
> imply it was a valid binding before it really was because the code change
> hasn't been made yet. Practically both are required so it doesn't really
> matter which way around they are.
It's the general practice everyone has adopted (though in this case the
bugfix bits might want to go before the bindings, possibly it's also a
bit unusual to do that). An unused binding is more acceptable than an
undocumented one.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists