From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752593Ab3G0RiE (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Jul 2013 13:38:04 -0400 Received: from mail-ea0-f178.google.com ([209.85.215.178]:35525 "EHLO mail-ea0-f178.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752511Ab3G0RiC (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Jul 2013 13:38:02 -0400 Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 19:37:48 +0200 From: Richard Cochran To: Mark Brown Cc: Jason Gunthorpe , Mark Rutland , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "ksummit-2013-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" , Russell King - ARM Linux , Pawel Moll , Stephen Warren , Domenico Andreoli , "rob.herring@calxeda.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Dave P Martin , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Ian Campbell Subject: Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] DT bindings as ABI [was: Do we have people interested in device tree janitoring / cleanup?] Message-ID: <20130727173748.GA4813@netboy> References: <20130725175702.GC22291@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <51F168FC.9070906@wwwdotorg.org> <20130725182920.GA24955@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20130725184834.GA8296@netboy> <20130725213753.GC17616@obsidianresearch.com> <20130726045433.GB4100@netboy> <20130726171524.GB28895@obsidianresearch.com> <20130727084825.GA4707@netboy> <20130727104018.GC9858@sirena.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130727104018.GC9858@sirena.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 11:40:18AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 10:48:26AM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote: > > > [ I disagree about the "more thought" part. The current discussion, > > coming years too late after the introduction of DT to ARM Linux, is > > contrary evidence enough. ] > > We did have exactly the same discussion when the DT transition was > started - this isn't something that people only just realised might be > an issue. There was a deliberate decision to focus on getting the > technology deployed to the point where it could be used as a straight > replacement for board files and accept that sometimes the results won't > be perfect and that we may need to rework as a result. Can you tell a bit more about this decision? When was it made? Who made it? How was it made public? Thanks, Richard