Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757360Ab3G2PcP (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Jul 2013 11:32:15 -0400 Received: from mail-yh0-f50.google.com ([209.85.213.50]:51717 "EHLO mail-yh0-f50.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756423Ab3G2PcM (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Jul 2013 11:32:12 -0400 Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 11:32:05 -0400 From: Matt Porter To: Mark Brown Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux , "jonsmirl@gmail.com" , Mark Rutland , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "ksummit-2013-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" , Jason Cooper , Pawel Moll , Stephen Warren , Richard Cochran , Domenico Andreoli , "rob.herring@calxeda.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Jason Gunthorpe , 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: <20130729153204.GJ5022@ohporter.com> References: <20130725184834.GA8296@netboy> <20130725213753.GC17616@obsidianresearch.com> <20130726080115.GA5436@netboy> <1374831744.2923.42.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> <20130726130927.GC4219@netboy> <20130726132709.GH29916@titan.lakedaemon.net> <1374846070.14574.92.camel@i7.infradead.org> <20130726142140.GR24642@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20130726144047.GH9858@sirena.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130726144047.GH9858@sirena.org.uk> 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: 2214 Lines: 46 On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 03:40:47PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 03:21:40PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > So this is why I'm seeing patches just a short time ago removing existing > > compatible strings from the DT descriptions and associated driver, and > > replacing them with new ones... meaning that the old DT files won't work > > with newer kernels. > > The big question is if you're seeing such patches merged. People making > mistakes on submissions is totally normal. Over in the bcm53xx thread, we've discussed such a patch to fix inconsistencies. The problem here is that there is no canonical answer to what a mistake is. I can make a strong argument that the support for these parts is in such an early stage that the bindings (in this case specifically the two different compatible strings for one vendor) should be considered unstable and ok to fix the consistency issue. Mark Rutland suggests we should change nothing and possibly add a third vendor prefix for new bindings. I'm having trouble accepting that just because these bindings made it into a final kernel during a period where scrutinization of these things was not very high that we need to forever carry this inconsistency in the "specification". http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg262059.html > > If it's the case I think you mean TBH I'm not sure anyone cares, I don't > think anyone is using that stuff in production yet as those chips go > almost exclusively into Android phones. At least the bcm281xx stuff falls into this category as you describe. There's simply nobody that would be upset if its bindings changed from bcm-> as there's just nobody using the DT-based upstream work except for internal Broadcom and a couple people external working closely with them. This situation seems to illustrate the strong need for an unstable binding period that's longer than just inclusion in a final kernel release. -Matt -- 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/