From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753467AbcIMLhV (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Sep 2016 07:37:21 -0400 Received: from muin.pair.com ([209.68.1.55]:64597 "EHLO muin.pair.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751317AbcIMLhT (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Sep 2016 07:37:19 -0400 Subject: Re: ARM, SoC: About the use DT-defined properties by 3rd-party drivers To: Sebastian Frias , Mark Rutland Cc: devicetree , Mason , Linux ARM , LKML References: <57BDAF2E.10502@laposte.net> <57D69FB1.2020801@laposte.net> <20160912123809.GB13741@leverpostej> <57D6AA54.6000208@laposte.net> <20160912135549.GA14165@leverpostej> <57D6D2A9.3010006@laposte.net> <20160912165637.GF14165@leverpostej> <57D7CF17.2050905@laposte.net> From: Timur Tabi Message-ID: <57D7E4EC.6050509@tabi.org> Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 06:37:16 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:43.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/43.0 SeaMonkey/2.40 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <57D7CF17.2050905@laposte.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Sebastian Frias wrote: > Let's make an abstraction of the word 'binding', 'create a binding', etc. and > just focus on this: > - Somebody submits a DT file that contains properties and nodes that are > *not used* by any Linux driver. > - Said properties and nodes serve as HW description for HW blocks for which > *there is no* Linux driver. > > The goal of the above is to use the DT as the authoritative (and single) > source of HW definition. No. I've grown weary of this discussion. We have explained multiple times why this is impractical. Using the DT to document hardware makes no sense. No one is going to do that, and anyone who attempts to submit a DT binding without an actual driver will get rejected. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Timur Tabi Subject: Re: ARM, SoC: About the use DT-defined properties by 3rd-party drivers Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 06:37:16 -0500 Message-ID: <57D7E4EC.6050509@tabi.org> References: <57BDAF2E.10502@laposte.net> <57D69FB1.2020801@laposte.net> <20160912123809.GB13741@leverpostej> <57D6AA54.6000208@laposte.net> <20160912135549.GA14165@leverpostej> <57D6D2A9.3010006@laposte.net> <20160912165637.GF14165@leverpostej> <57D7CF17.2050905@laposte.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <57D7CF17.2050905-QFKgK+z4sOrR7s880joybQ@public.gmane.org> Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Sebastian Frias , Mark Rutland Cc: devicetree , Mason , Linux ARM , LKML List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Sebastian Frias wrote: > Let's make an abstraction of the word 'binding', 'create a binding', etc. and > just focus on this: > - Somebody submits a DT file that contains properties and nodes that are > *not used* by any Linux driver. > - Said properties and nodes serve as HW description for HW blocks for which > *there is no* Linux driver. > > The goal of the above is to use the DT as the authoritative (and single) > source of HW definition. No. I've grown weary of this discussion. We have explained multiple times why this is impractical. Using the DT to document hardware makes no sense. No one is going to do that, and anyone who attempts to submit a DT binding without an actual driver will get rejected. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: timur@tabi.org (Timur Tabi) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 06:37:16 -0500 Subject: ARM, SoC: About the use DT-defined properties by 3rd-party drivers In-Reply-To: <57D7CF17.2050905@laposte.net> References: <57BDAF2E.10502@laposte.net> <57D69FB1.2020801@laposte.net> <20160912123809.GB13741@leverpostej> <57D6AA54.6000208@laposte.net> <20160912135549.GA14165@leverpostej> <57D6D2A9.3010006@laposte.net> <20160912165637.GF14165@leverpostej> <57D7CF17.2050905@laposte.net> Message-ID: <57D7E4EC.6050509@tabi.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Sebastian Frias wrote: > Let's make an abstraction of the word 'binding', 'create a binding', etc. and > just focus on this: > - Somebody submits a DT file that contains properties and nodes that are > *not used* by any Linux driver. > - Said properties and nodes serve as HW description for HW blocks for which > *there is no* Linux driver. > > The goal of the above is to use the DT as the authoritative (and single) > source of HW definition. No. I've grown weary of this discussion. We have explained multiple times why this is impractical. Using the DT to document hardware makes no sense. No one is going to do that, and anyone who attempts to submit a DT binding without an actual driver will get rejected.