Re: [V2, 1/2] media: i2c: dw9768: Add DT support and MAINTAINERS entry

[Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com>]

On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 01:49:28PM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 1:35 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 01:48:30PM +0300, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 01:14:06PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 03:21:41PM +0800, dongchun.zhu@mediatek.com wrote:
> > > > > From: Dongchun Zhu <dongchun.zhu@mediatek.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > This patch is to add the Devicetree binding documentation and
> > > > > MAINTAINERS entry for dw9768 actuator.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Dongchun Zhu <dongchun.zhu@mediatek.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/i2c/dongwoon,dw9768.txt | 9 +++++++++
> > > > >  MAINTAINERS                                                     | 7 +++++++
> > > >
> > > > This should be:
> > > > 1) two separate patches
> > >
> > > Why? The MAINTAINERS entry is usually added in the first patch needing it,
> > > isn't it?
> >
> > Bindings are required to be a separate patch.
> > Rob, is it still the case or am I mistaken?
> >
> 
> According to the rule 0 in [1] it should be a separate patch indeed
> and also use as subject "dt-bindings: <binding dir>: ..." which this
> patch also doesn't follow.
> So if I'm reading that document correctly, then I think the
> maintainers entry should be added in patch 2/2 along with the driver.

I understand [1] discussing the need for the bindings to be a "separate
patch" means a separate patch from the _driver_ for the device, not the
MAINTAINERS change.

Bindings come before the driver, and MAINTAINERS entry needs to be there no
later than the files. And I see no reason to add a separate patch just for
MAINTAINERS change.

> 
> [1]: https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.txt

-- 
Sakari Ailus
sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com