linux-kernel - Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] DT bindings as ABI [was: Do we have people interested in device tree janitoring / cleanup?]

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20130727173748.GA4813@netboy>
Date:	Sat, 27 Jul 2013 19:37:48 +0200
From:	Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:	Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>,
	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>,
	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>,
	Dave P Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@...rix.com>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] DT bindings as ABI [was: Do we have
 people interested in device tree janitoring / cleanup?]

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
--
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/