Do we have people interested in device tree janitoring / cleanup?

[robherring2@gmail.com (Rob Herring)]

On 07/24/2013 10:27 AM, Olof Johansson wrote:
> Every now and then I come across a binding that's just done Wrong(tm),
> merged through a submaintainer tree and hasn't seen proper review --
> if it had, it wouldn't look the way it does. It's something we're
> starting to address now since there's more people stepping up to be
> maintainers, but there's a backlog of bad bindings already merged.
> 
> Often they are produced by translating the platform_data structures
> directly over into device-tree properties without consideration to
> describing the hardware or usual conventions, using key/value pairs
> instead of boolean properties, etc.
> 
> Getting involved in cleaning up these kind of bindings is a great way
> to learn "the ways of device tree" for someone that has interest in
> that.
> 
> Latest find in this area is the Maxim 8925 bindings, that I came
> across since they caused a compile warning on some defconfig. I'll
> post a patch to address the warning but if someone else feels like
> fixing the bindings on top of it that would be appreciated!

Are they documented typically? Can we at a minimum update the
documentation with a big fat warning to not use or propagate the crap.
Or move the binding doc file to a fixme directory.

Rob