From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751438Ab3G0Kk6 (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Jul 2013 06:40:58 -0400 Received: from cassiel.sirena.org.uk ([80.68.93.111]:46611 "EHLO cassiel.sirena.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751235Ab3G0Kkz (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Jul 2013 06:40:55 -0400 Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 11:40:18 +0100 From: Mark Brown To: Richard Cochran Cc: Jason Gunthorpe , Mark Rutland , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "ksummit-2013-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" , Russell King - ARM Linux , Pawel Moll , Stephen Warren , Domenico Andreoli , "rob.herring@calxeda.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Dave P Martin , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Ian Campbell Message-ID: <20130727104018.GC9858@sirena.org.uk> References: <20130725175702.GC22291@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <51F168FC.9070906@wwwdotorg.org> <20130725182920.GA24955@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20130725184834.GA8296@netboy> <20130725213753.GC17616@obsidianresearch.com> <20130726045433.GB4100@netboy> <20130726171524.GB28895@obsidianresearch.com> <20130727084825.GA4707@netboy> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="UBlFrcG9zwrDu6zE" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130727084825.GA4707@netboy> X-Cookie: You will be awarded some great honor. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 94.175.92.69 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: broonie@sirena.org.uk Subject: Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] DT bindings as ABI [was: Do we have people interested in device tree janitoring / cleanup?] X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:57:07 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on cassiel.sirena.org.uk) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --UBlFrcG9zwrDu6zE Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 10:48:26AM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote: > [ I disagree about the "more thought" part. The current discussion, > coming years too late after the introduction of DT to ARM Linux, is > contrary evidence enough. ] We did have exactly the same discussion when the DT transition was started - this isn't something that people only just realised might be an issue. There was a deliberate decision to focus on getting the technology deployed to the point where it could be used as a straight replacement for board files and accept that sometimes the results won't be perfect and that we may need to rework as a result. To be clear the idea has always been to try for bindings that can be stable but we didn't have the process to guarantee that and there were substantial barriers in place to creating it while there was no critical mass behind adoption. What people are saying now is that we're now at a point where it looks like those barriers can be overcome. --UBlFrcG9zwrDu6zE Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJR86OPAAoJELSic+t+oim9XroP/3jojhlzh7bG35HUUh+UW2ST juZmTJvG8xt5x2Tg87ZW8OgMLP1pcA2ctl3qtnO/F9QaoFClB3r+iDPk2G3kbAHd fTyHi2+BGMD26vfXQlmbWD7mBgubVFR2uxLHQPmmK19xkiNvCkD+S7ddXJGYWtL9 fX+G828+c2F6hPqWgJ4ZBh/srCvucbR3oxbFRCMT/9/pqzgg3q0HZgiBxiXXo14+ /4JnODq7gzh/vMA/rP9wqpinZ01m0GTzEhFiUeUl4sDAH/PNFNqqtx4hC0HoIbnP O0MwUB1mljgOKE0cDVU/MYgPpwXqL6hHKrKX4ZWIkycZolh2HPYD+ULlLqNM7zk/ YEKM4Ke6GVrvi2Ub8OHoFT+b2IRlTshpL3XVNm5zJe8oEffm/vd4e0Ps7swwI1y2 vgciKNZUV4LpLCYYVVlhHBQCccpfsjSYxcqjHHoe9K/uJXXSHFj2ZW1FqrhQUcP1 dLWrpstbasDdopg+Ovq+JgQf6i+o6MTg7GPaOctd1wpD4T9h4ROBNR5ouPOzKyoe xGXbH8iWkE5ql8+wcedjqBp5YHjprOXYprTbRzyO+B4KXXAgg5zezSkGi0Z7+IUr aoH6uZgikaQQE/8eQipMysjaHxIQhflqX3BvDiHhiWNLzXzvss9zrRpSulmC6r8Z XHhQijo7HGL8/wsP6pvY =3I9O -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --UBlFrcG9zwrDu6zE-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: broonie@kernel.org (Mark Brown) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 11:40:18 +0100 Subject: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] DT bindings as ABI [was: Do we have people interested in device tree janitoring / cleanup?] In-Reply-To: <20130727084825.GA4707@netboy> References: <20130725175702.GC22291@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <51F168FC.9070906@wwwdotorg.org> <20130725182920.GA24955@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20130725184834.GA8296@netboy> <20130725213753.GC17616@obsidianresearch.com> <20130726045433.GB4100@netboy> <20130726171524.GB28895@obsidianresearch.com> <20130727084825.GA4707@netboy> Message-ID: <20130727104018.GC9858@sirena.org.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 10:48:26AM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote: > [ I disagree about the "more thought" part. The current discussion, > coming years too late after the introduction of DT to ARM Linux, is > contrary evidence enough. ] We did have exactly the same discussion when the DT transition was started - this isn't something that people only just realised might be an issue. There was a deliberate decision to focus on getting the technology deployed to the point where it could be used as a straight replacement for board files and accept that sometimes the results won't be perfect and that we may need to rework as a result. To be clear the idea has always been to try for bindings that can be stable but we didn't have the process to guarantee that and there were substantial barriers in place to creating it while there was no critical mass behind adoption. What people are saying now is that we're now at a point where it looks like those barriers can be overcome. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: