[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130727181709.GC4813@netboy>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 20:17:09 +0200
From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
To: David Lang <david@...g.hm>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
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 10:57:09AM -0700, David Lang wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jul 2013, Richard Cochran wrote:
>
> >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?
>
> I remember seeing some of the discussion on linux-kernel at the
> time. I believe there was also a LWN article.
I must have missed it on lkml, although I do try to keep an eye on
this topic. I did find
http://lwn.net/Articles/414016/
http://lwn.net/Articles/426606/
but no word about unstable bindings. Maybe this was decided by the
modern method of secret committee?
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists