On Thu, 7 Nov 2013, Jason Cooper wrote:
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 12:42:12PM +0100, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
On 06/11/2013 18:32, Jason Cooper :
Signed-off-by: Jason Cooper <ja...@lakedaemon.net>
---
All,
Since I've now had to answer this question a couple of times, I thought it
might be worth trying to put it in a document. I don't like long documents, so
this is pretty concise, and most likely wrong. Hence, RFC. :)
I also dislike quoting people from my imperfect memory, much better to have an
agreed upon document we can point people towards.
thx,
Jason.
.../devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.txt | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 52 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.txt
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.txt
b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.txt
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..5a84d5ebb0f5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+
+ Submitting devicetree (DT) binding patches
+
+I. For patch submitters
+
+ 0) Normal patch submission rules from Documentation/SubmittingPatches
+ applies.
+
+ 1) The Documentation/ portion of the patch should be a separate patch
+ and clearly labelled as such. For example:
+
+ [PATCH X/Y] dt: binding: mvebu mbus driver
+
+ This makes the binding portion easy to find among large patch series.
+
+ 2) Submit the entire series to the devicetree mailinglist at
This is not what I understood.
It seems that we said that only the patch that was containing the
binding documentation have to be sent to the devicetree
mainling-list (but this patch being part of a patch series anyway).
This way the devicetree maintainers would not have to deal with the
patch review process, even if they can have a look to the code
source on the mailing-list archive if they need to.
And that is the exact reason I wrote this doc. ;-) Mark Rutland said
on Friday during the Q&A portion of the DT talk that he wanted to be
able to refer to the code changes that went with the binding doc patch.
I raised my hand and pointed to the elephant in the room, that this was
the exact opposite of what was decided during the mini-summit. Grant
said to send the whole series since he has better filters now for
finding the binding documentation changes.
Since he isn't the only reviewer, I came up with the 'dt: binding: ...'
subject line to make the patch easier to find and review.
This sounds reasonable to me. I submit a 3 series patch to ASoC for new
DT support and have '[PATCH 3/3]dt: binding:' for the binding file and
send the whole series to the DT and ASoC mailing lists.
It doubles the email for a patch, but if they can be filtered does it
matter?
I will be sending one shortly so I guess I'll do that and see what
happens.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
