Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757501Ab3GZAkV (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Jul 2013 20:40:21 -0400 Received: from avon.wwwdotorg.org ([70.85.31.133]:40561 "EHLO avon.wwwdotorg.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756531Ab3GZAkR (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Jul 2013 20:40:17 -0400 Message-ID: <51F1C412.1010602@wwwdotorg.org> Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 17:34:26 -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: Rob Herring CC: Jason Cooper , Olof Johansson , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "ksummit-2013-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" , Russell King - ARM Linux , Samuel Ortiz , Catalin Marinas , Domenico Andreoli , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Dave P Martin , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" Subject: Re: DT bindings as ABI [was: Do we have people interested in device tree janitoring / cleanup?] References: <20130725193135.GT23879@titan.lakedaemon.net> In-Reply-To: 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: 2029 Lines: 40 On 07/25/2013 01:16 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Jason Cooper wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 02:11:31PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: >>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Olof Johansson wrote: >> >>>> One problem that needs to be solved is obviously how a binding >>>> graduates from tentative to locked. This work isn't going to be very >>>> interesting to most people, I suspect. Think standards committee type >>>> work. >>> >>> I think a time based stabilization period would be better than a >>> separate directory to apply bindings too. Or time plus periodic review >>> perhaps. >> >> The only problem with a time-based versus separate directory is how do >> users who've downloaded the tree determine which bindings are stable? >> If they pull a tarball, or receive an SDK, there is most likely no git >> history attached. > > Well, if time based includes moving the binding out of the kernel, > then that is what defines it as stable or not. I guess that is a form > of a separate directory. I don't think we want to be moving bindings > twice: tentative -> stable and kernel -> DT repo. > > The policy could be as simple as an binding without change in at least > N kernel releases is moved out and stable. That might not be quite the right criteria. Just because something didn't change doesn't mean it's "correct" and that any problems in the binding have been addressed. As one example, on Tegra, we have a few bindings that haven't changed in a while, yet rely on custom properties for describing which DMA channel to use, rather than using the fairly-recently-introduced standard DMA DT properties (this particular example is being rectified now, but I'm sure there are plenty of similar examples) -- 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/