From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rob Landley Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] of: remove /proc/device-tree Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 23:03:39 -0500 Message-ID: <1363838619.15703.52@driftwood> References: <1363791074-16415-1-git-send-email-grant.likely@secretlab.ca> <1363791074-16415-3-git-send-email-grant.likely@secretlab.ca> <5149D38E.9030202@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; DelSp=Yes; Format=Flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Return-path: In-Reply-To: (from daniel@zonque.org on Wed Mar 20 11:24:54 2013) Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Daniel Mack Cc: Rob Herring , Grant Likely , Greg Kroah-Hartman , devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Rob Herring , "David S. Miller" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 03/20/2013 11:24:54 AM, Daniel Mack wrote: > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Rob Herring > wrote: > > On 03/20/2013 09:51 AM, Grant Likely wrote: > >> The same data is now available in sysfs, so we can remove the code > >> that exports it in /proc and replace it with a symlink to the sysfs > >> version. > >> > >> Tested on versatile qemu model and mpc5200 eval board. More testing > >> would be appreciated. > > > > I would suggest testing with lshw in particular. That's the only > > /proc/device-tree user I've come across. > > kexec is another one. Not to mention various vendor scripts that > aren't > necessarily public. > > Don't such things also fall under the "we do not break userspace > compatibility - ever" rule? We used to have feature-removal-schedule. Linus removed it. (He did not add it to feature-removal-schedule first.) Rob