Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 19:37:48 +0200
From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        "ksummit-2013-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" 
	<ksummit-2013-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
        Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
        Pawel Moll <Pawel.Moll@arm.com>,
        Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>,
        Domenico Andreoli <cavokz@gmail.com>,
        "rob.herring@calxeda.com" <rob.herring@calxeda.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Dave P Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] DT bindings as ABI [was: Do we have
 people interested in device tree janitoring / cleanup?]
Message-ID: <20130727173748.GA4813@netboy>
References: <CAOesGMhJ+je8FZqeFxhAcYwU0CHYer+aGP6DA_8x3azrzfA2sw@mail.gmail.com>
 <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>
 <20130726045433.GB4100@netboy>
 <20130726171524.GB28895@obsidianresearch.com>
 <20130727084825.GA4707@netboy>
 <20130727104018.GC9858@sirena.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20130727104018.GC9858@sirena.org.uk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1090
Lines: 24

On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 11:40:18AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 10:48:26AM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
> 
> > [ I disagree about the "more thought" part. The current discussion,
> >   coming years too late after the introduction of DT to ARM Linux, is
> >   contrary evidence enough. ]
> 
> We did have exactly the same discussion when the DT transition was
> started - this isn't something that people only just realised might be
> an issue.  There was a deliberate decision to focus on getting the
> technology deployed to the point where it could be used as a straight
> replacement for board files and accept that sometimes the results won't
> be perfect and that we may need to rework as a result.

Can you tell a bit more about this decision? When was it made? Who
made it? How was it made public?

Thanks,
Richard
--
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/