[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130726141016.GF9858@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 15:10:16 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
Cc: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"ksummit-2013-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org"
<ksummit-2013-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@...rix.com>,
Pawel Moll <Pawel.Moll@....com>,
Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
Domenico Andreoli <cavokz@...il.com>,
"rob.herring@...xeda.com" <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>,
Dave P Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] DT bindings as ABI [was: Do we have
people interested in device tree janitoring / cleanup?]
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 03:09:29PM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
> Unless I totally misunderstood, the thread is talking about letting
> established bindings change with each new kernel version. I am
> opposed to that.
No, nobody is really saying that is a particularly good idea. There is
some debate about how we work out what an established binding is but
there's no serious suggestion that we don't want stable bindings.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists