[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1999586.84BnWE5EUh@thinkpad>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 17:23:35 +0200
From: Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@...il.com>
To: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...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 Wednesday 31 of July 2013 17:07:19 Richard Cochran wrote:
> 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.
I agree with you to some extent. Don't be so extreme though. As I already
said, this is not entirely "no purpose", as there are more benefits of having
device tree than just separation from kernel tree.
> > > 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.
(see end of the message)
> > > 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!"
I won't comment this...
> 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.
Care to stop ignoring my points other than those defending ideas (nowhere
stated as good or bad) from extreme opinions?
I said it many, many times, that a) and b) I proposed are just two extremes.
It is unlikely that an extreme solution will be the best option to choose. I
am strongly for something in the middle, just like I wrote in several of my
previous replies.
This is something that should be commented, not those extreme options.
Best regards,
Tomasz
--
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