Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752712Ab3G0SR1 (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Jul 2013 14:17:27 -0400 Received: from mail-ee0-f54.google.com ([74.125.83.54]:47303 "EHLO mail-ee0-f54.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752664Ab3G0SR0 (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Jul 2013 14:17:26 -0400 Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 20:17:09 +0200 From: Richard Cochran To: David Lang Cc: Mark Brown , Jason Gunthorpe , Mark Rutland , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "ksummit-2013-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" , Russell King - ARM Linux , Pawel Moll , Stephen Warren , Domenico Andreoli , "rob.herring@calxeda.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Dave P Martin , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Ian Campbell Subject: Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] DT bindings as ABI [was: Do we have people interested in device tree janitoring / cleanup?] Message-ID: <20130727181709.GC4813@netboy> References: <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> <20130727173748.GA4813@netboy> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1614 Lines: 39 On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 10:57:09AM -0700, David Lang wrote: > On Sat, 27 Jul 2013, Richard Cochran wrote: > > >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? > > I remember seeing some of the discussion on linux-kernel at the > time. I believe there was also a LWN article. I must have missed it on lkml, although I do try to keep an eye on this topic. I did find http://lwn.net/Articles/414016/ http://lwn.net/Articles/426606/ but no word about unstable bindings. Maybe this was decided by the modern method of secret committee? 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/