From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Catalin Marinas Subject: Re: ACPI vs DT at runtime Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 11:43:32 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20131115095717.GC1709@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20131118150052.GC24408@sirena.org.uk> <20131119091216.GA4412@netboy> <20131120064056.GB5272@netboy> <20131121192136.GA16735@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20131121204704.E4487C40753@trevor.secretlab.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20131121204704.E4487C40753-WNowdnHR2B42iJbIjFUEsiwD8/FfD2ys@public.gmane.org> Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Grant Likely Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux , Richard Cochran , Olof Johansson , Jon Masters , Mark Brown , "linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org" , devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 21 November 2013 20:47, Grant Likely wrote: > On Thu, 21 Nov 2013 19:21:36 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 07:40:57AM +0100, Richard Cochran wrote: >> > Now, I never saw any proclamation or discussion about "DT is in flux" >> > on the arm list. If I had, I surely would have complained, and loudly. >> > AFAICT, this decision was made in rather private circles, but you talk >> > as if this was abundantly clear. *It was not.* >> >> DT has been discussed several times over this year alone, which >> included discussions about the stability of bindings. Various >> people in those threads (including myself) have put their views >> forward. >> >> My position has been that if an interface ends up being published in a >> -final kernel, then it is part of the ABI, because a -final kernel is >> an end-product. It's a final release which says "we've done the >> development, it's finished for users use." If it's not then it shouldn't >> be in a -final kernel, or if it has to be there for development purposes, >> it needs to be hidden behind a "this is in development" label. +1 >> I've said that several times in the DT discussions and I believe >> basically been ignored. Frankly, I've said my bit and I've given up >> caring. > > Umm. Not sure why you feel ignored. We're absolutely going for stability > now. What I was hoping for is a better way to enforce this by taking the dts files out of the kernel. I think that's the point where the bindings can become ABI. In the meantime we rely on contributors and reviewers making sure backwards compatibility is preserved. But I guess we'll eventually get there. -- Catalin -- 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: catalin.marinas@arm.com (Catalin Marinas) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 11:43:32 +0000 Subject: ACPI vs DT at runtime In-Reply-To: <20131121204704.E4487C40753@trevor.secretlab.ca> References: <20131115095717.GC1709@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20131118150052.GC24408@sirena.org.uk> <20131119091216.GA4412@netboy> <20131120064056.GB5272@netboy> <20131121192136.GA16735@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20131121204704.E4487C40753@trevor.secretlab.ca> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 21 November 2013 20:47, Grant Likely wrote: > On Thu, 21 Nov 2013 19:21:36 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 07:40:57AM +0100, Richard Cochran wrote: >> > Now, I never saw any proclamation or discussion about "DT is in flux" >> > on the arm list. If I had, I surely would have complained, and loudly. >> > AFAICT, this decision was made in rather private circles, but you talk >> > as if this was abundantly clear. *It was not.* >> >> DT has been discussed several times over this year alone, which >> included discussions about the stability of bindings. Various >> people in those threads (including myself) have put their views >> forward. >> >> My position has been that if an interface ends up being published in a >> -final kernel, then it is part of the ABI, because a -final kernel is >> an end-product. It's a final release which says "we've done the >> development, it's finished for users use." If it's not then it shouldn't >> be in a -final kernel, or if it has to be there for development purposes, >> it needs to be hidden behind a "this is in development" label. +1 >> I've said that several times in the DT discussions and I believe >> basically been ignored. Frankly, I've said my bit and I've given up >> caring. > > Umm. Not sure why you feel ignored. We're absolutely going for stability > now. What I was hoping for is a better way to enforce this by taking the dts files out of the kernel. I think that's the point where the bindings can become ABI. In the meantime we rely on contributors and reviewers making sure backwards compatibility is preserved. But I guess we'll eventually get there. -- Catalin