From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755030AbaJHPMp (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Oct 2014 11:12:45 -0400 Received: from mezzanine.sirena.org.uk ([106.187.55.193]:40861 "EHLO mezzanine.sirena.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752036AbaJHPMn (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Oct 2014 11:12:43 -0400 Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2014 16:12:20 +0100 From: Mark Brown To: Javier Martinez Canillas Cc: Doug Anderson , Chanwoo Choi , Olof Johansson , Chris Zhong , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Abhilash Kesavan , linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20141008151220.GE4609@sirena.org.uk> References: <1412775847-15213-1-git-send-email-javier.martinez@collabora.co.uk> <1412775847-15213-2-git-send-email-javier.martinez@collabora.co.uk> <20141008142511.GA4609@sirena.org.uk> <54354C7D.7090104@collabora.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="3qTVFk/EjXyDmsv5" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <54354C7D.7090104@collabora.co.uk> X-Cookie: Everything you know is wrong! User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 94.175.94.161 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: broonie@sirena.org.uk Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] regulator: of: Add regulator-initial-mode parse support X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:24:06 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mezzanine.sirena.org.uk) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --3qTVFk/EjXyDmsv5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline 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. --3qTVFk/EjXyDmsv5 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUNVRTAAoJECTWi3JdVIfQtg4H/i+ZNi9+Fmd/Rzq3xk4Tj29I vNR5T6mPodulKKjwx+IBh02pLMHwB6gKkgeHxKGG62KcbY9rCW6+50TQ/WYsGHz7 4lXOu8Hp6Hhmg49V2j4OC2yAGCmh/VfTkJAYF+jWoQn//6xlkZTf2qejX2khcxtu a3TuNsfsK6eOFbWuxwI6/5qp7Bq/836Og6lZHklkyWSi3P7nO9UUb+7b/gPfy6Ry WscjLuH4QcQ86XzsZtb4Gvui8HqAr+RCj/nq9wJBqWVb/UuIOATXWzYG3z3kASn7 /YIz3JHRjDOdY9Y7/A00quD5aCwQnLAbA2CvbotxHY/bp/aU/p8ZeSFTiTwTSuY= =5lir -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --3qTVFk/EjXyDmsv5--