Re: DT bindings as ABI [was: Do we have people interested in device tree janitoring / cleanup?]

[Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>]

On 07/25/2013 01:16 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 02:11:31PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> One problem that needs to be solved is obviously how a binding
>>>> graduates from tentative to locked. This work isn't going to be very
>>>> interesting to most people, I suspect. Think standards committee type
>>>> work.
>>>
>>> I think a time based stabilization period would be better than a
>>> separate directory to apply bindings too. Or time plus periodic review
>>> perhaps.
>>
>> The only problem with a time-based versus separate directory is how do
>> users who've downloaded the tree determine which bindings are stable?
>> If they pull a tarball, or receive an SDK, there is most likely no git
>> history attached.
> 
> Well, if time based includes moving the binding out of the kernel,
> then that is what defines it as stable or not. I guess that is a form
> of a separate directory. I don't think we want to be moving bindings
> twice: tentative -> stable and kernel -> DT repo.
> 
> The policy could be as simple as an binding without change in at least
> N kernel releases is moved out and stable.

That might not be quite the right criteria. Just because something
didn't change doesn't mean it's "correct" and that any problems in the
binding have been addressed. As one example, on Tegra, we have a few
bindings that haven't changed in a while, yet rely on custom properties
for describing which DMA channel to use, rather than using the
fairly-recently-introduced standard DMA DT properties (this particular
example is being rectified now, but I'm sure there are plenty of similar
examples)