Re: [Ksummit-2012-discuss] Device-tree cross-subsystem binding workshop [was Media system Summit]

[Igor Grinberg <grinberg@compulab.co.il>]

On 07/13/12 04:20, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> On Thu July 12 2012 18:48:23 Olof Johansson wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Mark Brown
>>> <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 10:08:04AM +0200, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to add a "Common device tree bindings for media devices" topic to
>>>>> the agenda for consideration.
>>>>
>>>> It'd be nice to get this to join up with ASoC...
>>>
>>>
>>> There's a handful of various subsystems that have similar topics,
>>> maybe slice it the other way and do a device-tree/ACPI breakout that
>>> cuts across the various areas instead?
>>>
>>> Communication really needs to be two-way: Crafting good bindings for a
>>> complex piece of hardware isn't trivial and having someone know both
>>> the subsystem and device tree principles is rare. At least getting all
>>> those people into the same room would be good.
>>
>> I'm not so sure: I think that most decisions that need to be made are
>> quite subsystem specific. Trying to figure out how to implement DT for
>> multiple subsystems in one workshop seems unlikely to succeed, simply
>> because of lack of time. I also don't think there is much overlap between
>> subsystems in this respect, so while the DT implementation for one subsystem
>> is discussed, the representatives of other subsystems are twiddling their
>> thumbs.
>>
>> It might be more productive to have one or two DT experts around who
>> rotate over the various workshops that have to deal with the DT and can
>> offer advice.
> 
> One of the real problems right now is the lack of DT reviewers and
> general reviewer fatigue. In particular, many of the proposed bindings
> tend to have the same issues (focusing too much on how the
> platform_data is structured today and not on what the hardware
> actually is), and a few other similar things.
> 
> Based on that I don't think it's a better solution to have the same
> few people walk from room to room to cover the same thing multiple
> times. No one has to sit there the whole day and listen on it all, but
> for those who are genuinely interested in how other subsystems will
> handle these bindings, I think it would be very useful to learn from
> how they made their decisions. Don't work in a vacuum, etc.
> 
> So, I'd like to formally propose this as a mini-summit or workshop or
> whatever you might want to call it. I can help organize it together
> with Rob and Grant if needed (especially since Grant has a lot of
> other things going on at the moment).
> 
> If there's insufficent interest to do this as a separate event we can
> try to accomodate for it as part of the ARM mini-summit, but squeezing
> all of that in with the rest of the ARM activities in one day will be
> hard.

+1


-- 
Regards,
Igor.