[PATCH] staging: iio: ad5933: add binding doc for ad5933

[Jonathan Cameron]

On Sun, 02 Dec 2018 15:22:15 -0800
Joe Perches <joe at perches.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 2018-12-03 at 00:20 +0530, Himanshu Jha wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 02, 2018 at 02:57:12PM -0200, Marcelo Schmitt wrote:  
> > > Add a devicetree documentation for the ad5933 and ad5934 impedance
> > > converter, network analyzer.
> > > 
> > > Co-Developed-by: Gabriel Capella <gabriel at capella.pro>  
> > 
> > checkpatch spits out:
> > 
> > WARNING: Non-standard signature: Co-Developed-by:
> > 
> > Co-developed-by Vs Co-Developed-by ?
> > 
> > Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst: - Co-developed-by: states that the patch was also created by another developer
> > Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst:12) When to use Acked-by:, Cc:, and Co-Developed-by:
> > 
> > Confusing! Don't know which one is correct.  
> 
> I think neither one.
> 
> What's the real purpose or value of it?
> There isn't one as far as I can tell.
> 
> Just use Signed-off-by:
> 
> Or maybe add multiple "Authored-by:" if
> anyone is all that concerned about authorship
> crediting...

This is output of pair programming so only fair to acknowledge
both developers (or more if a larger group).  Right now
we have a guide that says Co-developed-by is the way to do that.
I would stick to that.  If people feel something else makes sense
then they should propose a change to the documentation and
hopefully we can reach some agreement on this.

I'm happy with Co-developed-by in IIO as I think it's a fair
reflection of what happened. Authored-by would be fine but
isn't a standard tag documented anywhere.

Jonathan
> 
> 
> >   
> > > Signed-off-by: Marcelo Schmitt <marcelo.schmitt1 at gmail.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Gabriel Capella <gabriel at capella.pro>
> > > ---  
> > 
> > Use `./scripts/get_maintainer.pl <your_patch>` to list the DT
> > maintainers and the relevant mailing list.
> > 
> >   
>