Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759487Ab3GaTM2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Jul 2013 15:12:28 -0400 Received: from mail-ea0-f170.google.com ([209.85.215.170]:50766 "EHLO mail-ea0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754168Ab3GaTM0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Jul 2013 15:12:26 -0400 Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 21:12:09 +0200 From: Richard Cochran To: Tomasz Figa 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?] Message-ID: <20130731191209.GA8027@netboy> References: <20130725175702.GC22291@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <1479410.BSGDrOcRvP@thinkpad> <20130731150717.GD4904@netboy> <1999586.84BnWE5EUh@thinkpad> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1999586.84BnWE5EUh@thinkpad> 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: 1474 Lines: 35 On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 05:23:35PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote: > > 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. We are saying that pursuing a) is useless because it adds pain and complexity without adding benefit. I simply don't buy your argument that DT makes a better platform data, but that is besides the point. I had said, think about the users. You said, what users? I wrote a clear and concise use case. You said, lets think about a) and b) and all the shades of gray in between. In order to support the use case, you will have to provide a stable ABI. You can't have a compromise solution. At the end of the day, either you have a stable ABI, or you don't. It was apparent to me that the arm/dt thing has been meandering around since its inception, but what was surprising is that people were doing this on purpose, and now they are defending this. Why can't we get a firm commitment on having a stable ABI? 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/