From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751360Ab3G0KUR (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Jul 2013 06:20:17 -0400 Received: from mail-bk0-f41.google.com ([209.85.214.41]:40158 "EHLO mail-bk0-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751241Ab3G0KUM (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Jul 2013 06:20:12 -0400 From: Tomasz Figa To: Richard Cochran Cc: Jason Gunthorpe , Mark Rutland , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "ksummit-2013-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" , Russell King - ARM Linux , Samuel Ortiz , Pawel Moll , Stephen Warren , Catalin Marinas , Domenico Andreoli , "rob.herring@calxeda.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Olof Johansson , Dave P Martin , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Ian Campbell Subject: Re: DT bindings as ABI [was: Do we have people interested in device tree janitoring / cleanup?] Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 12:20:05 +0200 Message-ID: <1776866.moAxavOOUJ@flatron> User-Agent: KMail/4.10.5 (Linux/3.10.1-gentoo; KDE/4.10.5; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20130727085259.GA6207@netboy> References: <20130726171524.GB28895@obsidianresearch.com> <20130727085259.GA6207@netboy> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Saturday 27 of July 2013 10:53:01 Richard Cochran wrote: > On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 11:15:24AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 06:54:33AM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote: > > > I too work on commercial embedded systems, and DT has proven to be > > > one gigantic *PITA*. > > > > Why do you think our experiences are so different? > > Here are a few recent examples: > > * What happens when one wants to boot vanilla kernel on the beaglebone? > > http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg198431.html Not really understand point of quoting this thread here. Lack of support for Beaglebone at that time was not really related to device tree in any way, just not enough support for it was merged at that time (as I could read here: http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg199863.html) > * Wanting already merged code to work is too much to ask. > > http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-omap/msg79731.html This is about not enough synchronization between OMAP people and TI not pushing enough and quickly enough to mainline... > * When people try in good faith to conduct methodical boot tests, > DT is working against them. > > http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-omap/msg79960.html I don't really see any relation with DT in this thread. Again this looks like support for this platform was not yet developed enough at that time in mainline kernel. Still, you managed to boot 3.7-rc2 (http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.omap/86719/focus=86952), didn't you? I wouldn't really connect all the problems we are having currently with DT alone. For many ARM people this is still something new, something that they don't fully know how to work with yet. We don't have proper processes, examples, best practices, etc. This is what we are trying to fix and a key point of all those discussions like this one. Best regards, Tomasz