Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754061Ab3GTMXI (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Jul 2013 08:23:08 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-f170.google.com ([209.85.212.170]:47935 "EHLO mail-wi0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753956Ab3GTMWh (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Jul 2013 08:22:37 -0400 From: Grant Likely Subject: The future of DT binding maintainership To: Wolfram Sang , Tomasz Figa , Mark Rutland , Stephen Warren , Ian Campbell , Pawel Moll , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Rob Herring , Olof Johansson , Mark Brown , Linus Walleij In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 04:46:47 +0100 Message-Id: <20130720034647.2B7B43E14BF@localhost> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2210 Lines: 47 A number of us had a face-to-face meeting in Dublin last week to talk about DT maintainership and the fact that it simply isn't working right now. Neither Rob nor I can keep up with the load and there are a lot of poorly designed bindings appearing in the tree. Device tree binding maintainership needs to be split off to a separate group, and we've started with a few people willing to help, Pawel Moll, Mark Rutland, Stephen Warren and Ian Campbell. (BTW, even though I've already sent a patch adding that group MAINTAINERS, this is not set in stone. Anyone else wanting to help maintain should volunteer) Another thing discussed is that we need to start validating DT schema with an extension to dtc. Tomasz Figa has volunteered to do this work and has support from his employer to spend time on it. What I'm hoping to have is that the DT schema will get checked as part of the dts build process so that any DT file that doesn't match the documented schema will get flagged, and that the schema files will be human readable and will double as documentation. There is not yet any process for binding maintainership. We talked about a few ideas, but they really need to be hashed out here on the mailing list. A couple of the questions: - How are bindings allowed to be merged? Through subsystem trees, or only through the bindings tree? - Through the bindings tree is more work but it will provide more control. - Through subsystem trees means drivers and bindings get merged together. - If we have a schema tool that reports errors on missing or unapproved schema, then spliting the driver from the binding won't matter that much. - Do we need to differentiate between 'staging' and 'stable' bindings? - What is the schedule for splitting the bindings and .dts files out of the kernel? - Ian Campbell is maintaining a DT bindings and .dts mirror tree which should eventually become the 'master' for merging DT bindings. g. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/