lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jul]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] DT bindings as ABI [was: Do we have people interested in device tree janitoring / cleanup?]
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 10:57:09AM -0700, David Lang wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jul 2013, Richard Cochran wrote:
>
> >On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 11:40:18AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> >>On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 10:48:26AM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
> >>
> >>>[ I disagree about the "more thought" part. The current discussion,
> >>> coming years too late after the introduction of DT to ARM Linux, is
> >>> contrary evidence enough. ]
> >>
> >>We did have exactly the same discussion when the DT transition was
> >>started - this isn't something that people only just realised might be
> >>an issue. There was a deliberate decision to focus on getting the
> >>technology deployed to the point where it could be used as a straight
> >>replacement for board files and accept that sometimes the results won't
> >>be perfect and that we may need to rework as a result.
> >
> >Can you tell a bit more about this decision? When was it made? Who
> >made it? How was it made public?
>
> I remember seeing some of the discussion on linux-kernel at the
> time. I believe there was also a LWN article.

I must have missed it on lkml, although I do try to keep an eye on
this topic. I did find

http://lwn.net/Articles/414016/
http://lwn.net/Articles/426606/

but no word about unstable bindings. Maybe this was decided by the
modern method of secret committee?

Thanks,
Richard


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-07-27 20:21    [W:0.111 / U:0.068 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site