[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5382EE60.3000808@ti.com>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 10:33:52 +0300
From: Roger Quadros <rogerq@...com>
To: Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
CC: Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel.garcia@...e-electrons.com>,
Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@...hile0.org>,
Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
"Gupta, Pekon" <pekon@...com>,
Robert Nelson <robertcnelson@...il.com>,
Jingoo Han <jg1.han@...sung.com>, <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
<nsekhar@...com>,
"linux-omap@...r.kernel.org" <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/16] OMAP: GPMC: Restructure OMAP GPMC driver (NAND)
: DT binding change proposal
On 05/23/2014 05:53 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Roger Quadros <rogerq@...com> [140523 01:17]:
>> On 05/22/2014 05:46 PM, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
>>> On 22 May 01:51 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>>>> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Roger Quadros <rogerq@...com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 21 May 02:20 PM, Roger Quadros wrote:
>>>>>> While I agree that the GPMC driver is a bit messy, I'm not sure it's possible
>>>>>> to go through such a complete devicetree binding re-design (breaking backwards
>>>>>> compatibility) now that the binding is already in production.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why not? especially if the existing bindings are poorly dones. Is anyone using these
>>>>> bindings burning the DT into ROM and can't change it when they update the kernel?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> While I do agree that your DT bindings are much better than the
>>>> current ones, there is a policy that DT bindings are an external API
>>>> and once are released with a kernel are set in stone and can't be
>>>> changed.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Exactly. The DT binding is considered an ABI. Thus, invariant across kernel
>>> versions. Users can't be coherced into a DTB update after a kernel update.
>>>
>>> That said, I don't really care if you break compatilibity in this case.
>>> Rather, I'm suggesting that you make sure this change is going to be accepted
>>> upstream, before doing any more work. The DT maintainers are reluctant to do
>>> so.
>>
>> Appreciate your concern.
>>
>> Would be really nice if you can review patches 1-12. They have nothing to do with DT changes.
>> Thanks.
>
> I'm mostly concerned about keeping things working. I think the
> only way we can keep things working is to keep support for
> the old binding around in addition to the new one. That way
> we can update devices one at a time.
Good to hear that you are not keen on keeping the old bindings forever. I understand
that we need to keep things working during the transition. I'll think of something to
maintain backward compatibility while supporting the new binding.
cheers,
-roger
--
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