Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756715Ab3G2PqF (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Jul 2013 11:46:05 -0400 Received: from mail-gh0-f174.google.com ([209.85.160.174]:52935 "EHLO mail-gh0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756689Ab3G2PqC (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Jul 2013 11:46:02 -0400 Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 11:45:55 -0400 From: Matt Porter To: Olof Johansson Cc: Mark Brown , 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" Subject: Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] DT bindings as ABI [was: Do we have people interested in device tree janitoring / cleanup?] Message-ID: <20130729154553.GK5022@ohporter.com> 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> 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: 2474 Lines: 51 On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 08:49:43AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote: > 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. However, we still have people arguing that we can't (or should not) change a binding right now even to fix inconsistency issues that are discovered after the fact. I'm hearing a different story depending on who is telling it at the moment. Getting quickly to a definitive answer on the criteria for an "established" binding is will help end ongoing discussions as to whether we can fix a currently broken one or just have to leave it. > 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. +1 -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/