docs: dt: submitting-patches: Remove possible confusion of combining DTS

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>
Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20260428150420.121472-2-krzysztof.kozlowski@oss.qualcomm.com
Signed-off-by: Rob Herring (Arm) <robh@kernel.org>

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.rst b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.rst
index 81e27e50f9057d2664d351b31d6ad997b07772cd..2a5533f68830b5cc452769e73934fe5d1da43746 100644 (file)
--- 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