[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=V337ojovBwiTA9Lnt0OMj0SGTRQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 14 May 2011 06:14:24 +0200
From: Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
To: Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>
Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/5] Basic ARM devicetree support
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 May 2011, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>
>> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 10:44:49PM +0200, Grant Likely wrote:
>> > Right now it merges cleanly with linux-next and the resulting tree
>> > builds and boots at least on qemu. Unless you really object, I'm
>> > going to ask Stephen to add the following branch to the /end/ of the
>> > list of trees for linux-next so it can easily be dropped it if it
>> > causes any problems.
>>
>> As far as the set of five patches looks fine to me, I don't have any
>> objections against them. So I think we can merge them for .40.
Yay! Thanks Russell!
>> What I've always worried about is the platform stuff, and that's
>> something I'm going to continue worrying about because I don't think
>> we have sufficient review capacity to ensure that we don't end up
>> with lots of stupidities.
Understood, and I agree to a point, but I'm cautiously optimistic that
the review process we talked about heavily this week will be able to
push back on bad bindings to prevent a lot of these problems. It also
helps that we we can cut over to device tree in board ports in stages
without needing a change-everything-flag-day. Devices can be
converted one by one, which will limit the volume of stuff that needs
to be reviewed at one time.
> DT is certainly not a silver bullet. Good judgement will be needed as
> to what is put in DT and how it is represented. I don't think that it
> would make things worse than they are now though.
+1
> I also do have some concerns about some aspects of DT which I've
> expressed several times in the past. However I don't think holding back
> those patches any longer is a solution though.
>
> So consider this as a ACK from my part to merge those patches now. This
> will get the ball rolling.
Thanks Nicolas.
g.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists