[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130731150717.GD4904@netboy>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 17:07:19 +0200
From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
To: Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@...il.com>
Cc: mbizon@...ebox.fr, 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>,
Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Arend van Spriel <arend@...adcom.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 Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:59:59PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> On Wednesday 31 of July 2013 12:37:37 Maxime Bizon wrote:
> >
> > Board files are C code anyone has the skill to edit/understand/refactor.
> > Moving to DT and keep them in tree tightly coupled with the kernel
> > version just adds another layer of indirection for *no purpose*.
+1
That is exactly what I tried to say.
> > Linus started the whole thing some years ago by refusing to pull ARM
> > tree [1]. Reread his post, what he wants is clearly b).
> >
> > Going a) does not solve any problem. You are just moving churn to
> > somewhere else. We had board files churn, then defconfigs churn, DTS
> > files (and associated drivers) will be next.
And at this rate, we are headed for another Linus ultimatum, sooner or
later.
> > DT is self inflicted pain. It has to be for the greater good.
>
> It has several benefits over board files that I mentioned above, possible
> without fully separating them from kernel tree.
Every time a criticism is voiced about DT, the DT people stick their
fingers in their ears and say, "NAH, NAH, NAH, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"
WRT to DT-as-platform-device, we would rather stick with the C code,
please. Just pushing the configuration tables into an external form
does not simplify the problem. In fact, it creates new problems by
inviting the possibility of a bootloader/DT/kernel mismatch.
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