Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759298Ab3GZPtt (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Jul 2013 11:49:49 -0400 Received: from mail-qc0-f171.google.com ([209.85.216.171]:37115 "EHLO mail-qc0-f171.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758095Ab3GZPtq (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Jul 2013 11:49:46 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Originating-IP: [2620:0:1000:1b02:6e3b:e5ff:fe16:f1aa] In-Reply-To: <20130726141016.GF9858@sirena.org.uk> References: <20130725175702.GC22291@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <51F168FC.9070906@wwwdotorg.org> <20130725182920.GA24955@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20130725184834.GA8296@netboy> <20130725213753.GC17616@obsidianresearch.com> <20130726080115.GA5436@netboy> <1374831744.2923.42.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> <20130726130927.GC4219@netboy> <20130726141016.GF9858@sirena.org.uk> Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 08:49:43 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] DT bindings as ABI [was: Do we have people interested in device tree janitoring / cleanup?] From: Olof Johansson To: Mark Brown Cc: Richard Cochran , Mark Rutland , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "ksummit-2013-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" , Russell King - ARM Linux , Ian Campbell , Pawel Moll , Stephen Warren , Domenico Andreoli , "rob.herring@calxeda.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Jason Gunthorpe , Dave P Martin , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1908 Lines: 40 On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 03:09:29PM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote: > >> Unless I totally misunderstood, the thread is talking about letting >> established bindings change with each new kernel version. I am >> opposed to that. > > No, nobody is really saying that is a particularly good idea. There is > some debate about how we work out what an established binding is but > there's no serious suggestion that we don't want stable bindings. Yes, what Mark said -- _today_ all bindings are subject to change and can be changed in lockstep with the kernel. This has been necessary as part of development to sort out all of the various bootstrapping issues across platforms. What we're talking about is to end that mode of operation, and moving over to locking in bindings. Device tree contents, as mentioned elsewhere, might still be changed just like code is -- bugs are fixed, etc. But it's time to start locking down the bindings, in particular no longer change the established ones. Long term, final goal is likely to be close to what Russell is saying -- nothing should go into the kernel tree unless the binding is in a fully stable state. However, we have a transitional period between now and then, and even when we're at the final state there will be need to have some sort of sandbox for development and test of future bindings. Dealing with all that, as well as the actual process for locking in bindings, is what needs to be sorted out. I think we're all in agreement that bindings that change over time are nothing but pain, but we're arguing that in circles anyway. -Olof -- 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/