Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760555Ab3GaPYp (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Jul 2013 11:24:45 -0400 Received: from mail-ee0-f42.google.com ([74.125.83.42]:57255 "EHLO mail-ee0-f42.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760385Ab3GaPYm (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Jul 2013 11:24:42 -0400 From: Tomasz Figa To: Richard Cochran Cc: mbizon@freebox.fr, 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 , Olof Johansson , Mark Brown , Arend van Spriel , 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?] Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 17:23:35 +0200 Message-ID: <1999586.84BnWE5EUh@thinkpad> User-Agent: KMail/4.10.5 (Linux/3.10.1-gentoo; KDE/4.10.5; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20130731150717.GD4904@netboy> References: <20130725175702.GC22291@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <1479410.BSGDrOcRvP@thinkpad> <20130731150717.GD4904@netboy> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2478 Lines: 60 On Wednesday 31 of July 2013 17:07:19 Richard Cochran wrote: > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:59:59PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote: > > On Wednesday 31 of July 2013 12:37:37 Maxime Bizon wrote: > > > Board files are C code anyone has the skill to edit/understand/refactor. > > > Moving to DT and keep them in tree tightly coupled with the kernel > > > version just adds another layer of indirection for *no purpose*. > > +1 > > That is exactly what I tried to say. I agree with you to some extent. Don't be so extreme though. As I already said, this is not entirely "no purpose", as there are more benefits of having device tree than just separation from kernel tree. > > > Linus started the whole thing some years ago by refusing to pull ARM > > > tree [1]. Reread his post, what he wants is clearly b). > > > > > > Going a) does not solve any problem. You are just moving churn to > > > somewhere else. We had board files churn, then defconfigs churn, DTS > > > files (and associated drivers) will be next. > > And at this rate, we are headed for another Linus ultimatum, sooner or > later. (see end of the message) > > > DT is self inflicted pain. It has to be for the greater good. > > > > It has several benefits over board files that I mentioned above, possible > > without fully separating them from kernel tree. > > Every time a criticism is voiced about DT, the DT people stick their > fingers in their ears and say, "NAH, NAH, NAH, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" I won't comment this... > WRT to DT-as-platform-device, we would rather stick with the C code, > please. Just pushing the configuration tables into an external form > does not simplify the problem. In fact, it creates new problems by > inviting the possibility of a bootloader/DT/kernel mismatch. Care to stop ignoring my points other than those defending ideas (nowhere stated as good or bad) from extreme opinions? I said it many, many times, that a) and b) I proposed are just two extremes. It is unlikely that an extreme solution will be the best option to choose. I am strongly for something in the middle, just like I wrote in several of my previous replies. This is something that should be commented, not those extreme options. Best regards, Tomasz -- 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/