[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120716130015.GF17435@pengutronix.de>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 15:00:15 +0200
From: Wolfram Sang <w.sang@...gutronix.de>
To: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Alessandro Rubini <rubini@...dd.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com>,
Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
Deepak Saxena <dsaxena@...aro.org>,
devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm-soc tree with the
i2c-embedded tree
> >What I am afraid of is: tentative solutions tend to stay, because the
> >need for a proper solution is reduced. Yet, finding proper generic
> >bindings might take some time which doesn't meet the high pressure
> >around DT at the moment.
>
> I agree with what you say to some extent, but I believe that it is
> more important to have a working solution now than to ensure that
> each bindings are as unique as possible. After any suggestion of
> consolidation, a move from vendor specific to generically defined
> Device Tree bindings is trivial. Especially in the current stage
> where adaptions and definitions are still fluid.
See my response to Linus. I do understand your view and where it comes
from. As a maintainer, I have other priorities. No offence involved,
it needs some settlement.
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (199 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists