Re: [PATCH RFC] dt: bindings: submitting patches document

On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 12:42:12PM +0100, Nicolas Ferre wrote:

On 06/11/2013 18:32, Jason Cooper :

quoted

Signed-off-by: Jason Cooper <redacted>
---
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.

Long story short, we changed our mind on the last day, and as I said in
the comment section, I don't like quoting others from my imperfect
memory.  So, I'd like to have an agreed upon doc.

Someone to clarify?

Please.

thx,

Jason.

quoted

+       devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
+
+II. For sub-system maintainers
+
+  1) If you aren't comfortable reviewing a given binding, reply to it and ask
+     the devicetree maintainers for guidance.  This will help them prioritize
+     which ones to review and which ones are ok to let go.
+
+  2) If you are comfortable with the binding, and it hasn't received an
+     Acked-by from the devicetree maintainers after a few weeks, go ahead and
+     take it.
+
+  3) For a series going though multiple trees, the binding patch should be
+     kept with the driver using the binding.
+
+III.  General binding rules
+
+  1) Don't hold up a binding because it isn't perfect.
+
+  2) Use specific compatible strings so that if we need to add a feature (DMA)
+     in the future, we can create a new compatible string.
+
+  3) Ideally, all bindings receive sufficient review.  In the real world, we
+     need to prioritize.  Bindings for a specific block of IP aren't as
+     critical as a binding for a common subsystem, like PCI.
+
+  4) Don't submit bindings for staging or unstable.  That will be decided by
+     the devicetree maintainers *after* discussion on the mailinglist.
+
+IV. Notes
+
+  This document is intended as a general familiarization with the process as
+  decided at the 2013 Kernel Summit.  When in doubt, the current word of the
+  devicetree maintainers overrules this document.  In that situation, a patch
+  updating this document would be appreciated.

-- 
Nicolas Ferre

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html