DTS patches were always expected to be either sent separately or put at
the end of patchset, but the first part rule explaining it used a
"should be placed at the end of patchset" phrase which might create
wrong impression.  This part "should be" was about order of the patches
and applied only to the case when DTS is combined into this patchset.

Suggested-by: Luca Weiss <luca.weiss@fairphone.com>
Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@oss.qualcomm.com>

---

changes in v2:
1. Rephrase a bit commit msg, minor style
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.rst | 7 ++++---
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.rst b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.rst
index 81e27e50f905..2a5533f68830 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.rst
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.rst
@@ -64,9 +64,10 @@ I. For patch submitters
 
   7) DTS is treated in general as driver-independent hardware description, thus
      any DTS patches, regardless whether using existing or new bindings, should
-     be placed at the end of patchset to indicate no dependency of drivers on
-     the DTS.  DTS will be anyway applied through separate tree or branch, so
-     different order would indicate the series is non-bisectable.
+     be a separate posting or, when combined with driver patches, placed at the
+     end of the patchset to indicate no dependency of drivers on the DTS.  DTS
+     will be anyway applied through separate tree or branch, so different order
+     would indicate the series is non-bisectable.
 
      If a driver subsystem maintainer prefers to apply entire set, instead of
      their relevant portion of patchset, please split the DTS patches into
-- 
2.51.0

On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 17:04:21 +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> DTS patches were always expected to be either sent separately or put at
> the end of patchset, but the first part rule explaining it used a
> "should be placed at the end of patchset" phrase which might create
> wrong impression.  This part "should be" was about order of the patches
> and applied only to the case when DTS is combined into this patchset.
> 
> Suggested-by: Luca Weiss <luca.weiss@fairphone.com>
> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@oss.qualcomm.com>
> 
> ---
> 
> changes in v2:
> 1. Rephrase a bit commit msg, minor style
> ---
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.rst | 7 ++++---
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 

Applied, thanks!