Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755826Ab3HANsY (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Aug 2013 09:48:24 -0400 Received: from mail-oa0-f45.google.com ([209.85.219.45]:43423 "EHLO mail-oa0-f45.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752230Ab3HANsW (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Aug 2013 09:48:22 -0400 Message-ID: <51FA6723.9010608@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2013 08:48:19 -0500 From: Rob Herring User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130510 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Woodhouse CC: "jonsmirl@gmail.com" , Russell King - ARM Linux , Mark Rutland , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "ksummit-2013-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" , Ian Campbell , Pawel Moll , Richard Cochran , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Tomasz Figa , Jason Gunthorpe , Domenico Andreoli , mbizon@freebox.fr, 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?] References: <20130725175702.GC22291@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <1999586.84BnWE5EUh@thinkpad> <20130731191209.GA8027@netboy> <1409617.9untvfnOTJ@flatron> <20130731200017.GC8027@netboy> <20130731201457.GA24642@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20130731204817.GC24642@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <1375352315.22084.138.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <1375352315.22084.138.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1752 Lines: 37 On 08/01/2013 05:18 AM, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Wed, 2013-07-31 at 17:26 -0400, jonsmirl@gmail.com wrote: >> Alternatively you may be of the belief that it is impossible to get >> rid of the board specific code. But x86 doesn't have any of it, why >> should ARM? > > The reason x86 doesn't have it is because it carries three decades worth > of legacy baggage so that it can still look like a 1980s IBM PC when > necessary. > > There *have* been some x86 platforms which abandon that legacy crap, and > for those we *do* have board-specific code. (Is James still maintaining > Voyager support? It feels very strange to talk about Voyager with it > *not* being the 'legacy crap' in question...) > > We've even seen *recent* attempts to abandon the legacy crap in the > embedded x86 space, which backtracked and added it all back again — in > part because x86 lacked any sane way to describe the hardware if it > wasn't pretending to be a PC. ACPI doesn't cut it, and DT "wasn't > invented here"... > > Unless you want the ARM world to settle on a strategy of "all the world > is an Assabet", I'd be careful what you wish for... There is some level of belief that ACPI will enable running this years OS on next years h/w. This idea is completely flawed as long as ARM vendors don't design for compatibility, spin the Si for compatibility issues, and have some mechanism to emulate legacy h/w. All the discussions and issues around DT bindings and processes will apply to ACPI bindings as well. Rob -- 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/