From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751384Ab3G0KYh (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Jul 2013 06:24:37 -0400 Received: from mms1.broadcom.com ([216.31.210.17]:1995 "EHLO mms1.broadcom.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751241Ab3G0KYd (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Jul 2013 06:24:33 -0400 X-Server-Uuid: 06151B78-6688-425E-9DE2-57CB27892261 Message-ID: <51F39FD8.6080808@broadcom.com> Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 12:24:24 +0200 From: "Arend van Spriel" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130623 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Tomasz Figa" cc: "Richard Cochran" , "Olof Johansson" , "Mark Brown" , "Mark Rutland" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "ksummit-2013-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" , "Russell King - ARM Linux" , "Ian Campbell" , "Pawel Moll" , "Stephen Warren" , "Domenico Andreoli" , "rob.herring@calxeda.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "Jason Gunthorpe" , "Dave P Martin" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" Subject: Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] DT bindings as ABI [was: Do we have people interested in device tree janitoring / cleanup?] References: <20130725175702.GC22291@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20130727050406.GB4221@netboy> <2007664.vYsECFSKrV@flatron> In-Reply-To: <2007664.vYsECFSKrV@flatron> X-WSS-ID: 7DED417331W56446917-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 07/27/2013 11:51 AM, Tomasz Figa wrote: > On Saturday 27 of July 2013 07:04:08 Richard Cochran wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 08:49:43AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote: >>> Long term, final goal is likely to be close to what Russell is saying >> >> Why is this a long term goal? Start today. >> >>> -- nothing should go into the kernel tree unless the binding is in a >>> fully stable state. However, we have a transitional period between now >>> and then, and even when we're at the final state there will be need to >>> have some sort of sandbox for development and test of future bindings. >> >> Why not just set up a git tree right away? >> >>> Dealing with all that, as well as the actual process for locking in >>> bindings, is what needs to be sorted out. >>> >>> I think we're all in agreement that bindings that change over time are >>> nothing but pain, but we're arguing that in circles anyway. >> >> No. >> >> I keep saying, the bindings must be stable ABI, *today*. >> >> You keep saying, maybe later, but until then we will make things up as >> we go along. > > We have currently a lot of broken bindings, because people didn't know how > to define ones and those they defined have not been properly reviewed. Do > you really want such broken ABI in the kernel? > > Sure, there are many existing bindings that can be just made stable and > well they probably are already de facto stable. This is mostly about > subsystem bindings and whatever already has many users, both made them get > more thought when designing and more review before merging. > > Still, a lot of device and platform-specific bindings are simply broken. > Take max8925 backlight driver, that Olof started this whole discussion > with, as an example. We need to sort them out before they can be > stabilized. That is a nice summary of how we got from null to now and Richard seems to be simply saying: let's stop mucking about and make this a project with a well-defined process of dealing with staging and stable bindings and keep stable bindings stable. Whether it should be within the kernel repo as a separate subsystem or in an entire different repo is a trivial decision, but still a decision that needs to be made. Apart from stable DT bindings I would love to see a DT compiler that that next to DT syntax detects mistakes in properties used for the selfish reason that I spent hours debugging regulator code, because I typed vmmc_supply iso vmmc-supply. I did not go through all the bindings, but this may require a more formal description so it could be compiled/read in the DT compiler. Regards, Arend From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arend@broadcom.com (Arend van Spriel) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 12:24:24 +0200 Subject: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] DT bindings as ABI [was: Do we have people interested in device tree janitoring / cleanup?] In-Reply-To: <2007664.vYsECFSKrV@flatron> References: <20130725175702.GC22291@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20130727050406.GB4221@netboy> <2007664.vYsECFSKrV@flatron> Message-ID: <51F39FD8.6080808@broadcom.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 07/27/2013 11:51 AM, Tomasz Figa wrote: > On Saturday 27 of July 2013 07:04:08 Richard Cochran wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 08:49:43AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote: >>> Long term, final goal is likely to be close to what Russell is saying >> >> Why is this a long term goal? Start today. >> >>> -- nothing should go into the kernel tree unless the binding is in a >>> fully stable state. However, we have a transitional period between now >>> and then, and even when we're at the final state there will be need to >>> have some sort of sandbox for development and test of future bindings. >> >> Why not just set up a git tree right away? >> >>> Dealing with all that, as well as the actual process for locking in >>> bindings, is what needs to be sorted out. >>> >>> I think we're all in agreement that bindings that change over time are >>> nothing but pain, but we're arguing that in circles anyway. >> >> No. >> >> I keep saying, the bindings must be stable ABI, *today*. >> >> You keep saying, maybe later, but until then we will make things up as >> we go along. > > We have currently a lot of broken bindings, because people didn't know how > to define ones and those they defined have not been properly reviewed. Do > you really want such broken ABI in the kernel? > > Sure, there are many existing bindings that can be just made stable and > well they probably are already de facto stable. This is mostly about > subsystem bindings and whatever already has many users, both made them get > more thought when designing and more review before merging. > > Still, a lot of device and platform-specific bindings are simply broken. > Take max8925 backlight driver, that Olof started this whole discussion > with, as an example. We need to sort them out before they can be > stabilized. That is a nice summary of how we got from null to now and Richard seems to be simply saying: let's stop mucking about and make this a project with a well-defined process of dealing with staging and stable bindings and keep stable bindings stable. Whether it should be within the kernel repo as a separate subsystem or in an entire different repo is a trivial decision, but still a decision that needs to be made. Apart from stable DT bindings I would love to see a DT compiler that that next to DT syntax detects mistakes in properties used for the selfish reason that I spent hours debugging regulator code, because I typed vmmc_supply iso vmmc-supply. I did not go through all the bindings, but this may require a more formal description so it could be compiled/read in the DT compiler. Regards, Arend