Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756736Ab3GYRqT (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Jul 2013 13:46:19 -0400 Received: from avon.wwwdotorg.org ([70.85.31.133]:39663 "EHLO avon.wwwdotorg.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756102Ab3GYRqR (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Jul 2013 13:46:17 -0400 Message-ID: <51F16465.3030708@wwwdotorg.org> Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 10:46:13 -0700 From: Stephen Warren User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130510 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grant Likely CC: Tomasz Figa , Wolfram Sang , Mark Rutland , Ian Campbell , Pawel Moll , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Rob Herring , Olof Johansson , Mark Brown , Linus Walleij Subject: Re: The future of DT binding maintainership References: <20130720034647.2B7B43E14BF@localhost> <2962401.WRRoYlXkRr@flatron> <20130724141112.464623E09C5@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20130724141112.464623E09C5@localhost> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1969 Lines: 40 On 07/24/2013 07:11 AM, Grant Likely wrote: > On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 15:49:21 +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote: ... >> From remaining questions I remember: >> - How should we mark bindings as staging and stable? (i.e. >> documentation/schema files in different folders or something else?) > > I think having a different folder for staged bindings is going to be the > most managable. The other option would be a tag in the file indicating > that it is stable, but I suspect that will require more work in the long > run. At least with a staging directory you can tell at a glance which > bindings are in draft form. Any bindings used from the staging directory > should trigger a warning from DTC, but we probably want to consolidate > all 'staging' binding warnings into a single message so that dtc output > doesn't get too chatty. > > Once a binding is moved into the stable directory, only backwards > compatible changes should be allowed. Is the following scenario useful to consider * A minimal DT binding is initially created to represent the most basic features of a device. This graduates quickly to being marked stable. * The full feature-set of the device needs to be exposed later. This involves making backwards-compatible changes to the binding. Those changes may initially be very tentative, since they're more complex. This implies to me that we either need to mark specific properties or parts of a binding as stable, and part as tentative. Does using separate directories for this make sense, or should we put markup into the binding definition itself? I suppose we could consider bindings/tentative/foo/bar.txt as automatically inheriting-from/extending bindings/stable/foo/bar.txt. -- 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/