From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Daney Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/44] mfd: as3722: Drop reference to pm_power_off from devicetree bindings Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 09:59:29 -0700 Message-ID: <54341BF1.9020001@gmail.com> References: <1412659726-29957-1-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <1412659726-29957-6-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <543412F7.8040909@landley.net> <20141007163131.GE28835@roeck-us.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=IQmBW/ecm0PlBOnNT1tmvTyGhPpEN+BG3k+K+8XnQAY=; b=pWBorCMq1eXduZiVcf3gaU7QHS/EPu8ZXHWt+PfF9KdK7ozE3k2wh89+u0Q8g8ikqp EQn+BXYNgkI3hRDGELWv+3nLHjQRlfe5O9Vb7vY1STmktBCVFAP+OFAKX0iRnva2EMus JfhaO00M36epbU0e4sCCgGOfCQw2xnM2O2jpfXFxCVdmqPycGvCCW9FgM1HTuS7sr9cB O64d7T/vj6muGVnt2VytRs6qAo+IFyfJul4+FqDxnqY7hEVUfD3Nhf4AypscddyjZTBL u64KIGIicQavYjyK29H/pF4hUkOr006m6zf0ypKh6fXqLkjVnW/y42h5kYgh3AJ3wOtG Ld4Q== In-Reply-To: <20141007163131.GE28835@roeck-us.net> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: driverdev-devel-bounces@linuxdriverproject.org Sender: "devel" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Guenter Roeck , Rob Landley Cc: linux-m32r-ja@ml.linux-m32r.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, Mark Rutland , devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, lguest@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-c6x-dev@linux-c6x.org, linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Pawel Moll , xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, adi-buildroot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org, linux-am33-list@redhat.com, linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, openipmi-developer@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-metag@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, linux-cris-kernel@axis.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Rob On 10/07/2014 09:31 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 11:21:11AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote: >> On 10/07/14 00:28, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>> Devicetree bindings are supposed to be operating system independent >>> and should thus not describe how a specific functionality is implemented >>> in Linux. >> >> So your argument is that linux/Documentation/devicetree/bindings should >> not be specific to Linux. Merely hosted in the Linux kernel source >> repository. >> >> Well that's certainly a point of view. >> > Not specifically my argument, really, and nothing new either. But, yes, I do > think that devicetree bindings descriptions should not include implementation > details, especially since those may change over time (as is the case here). > I fully agree. Many device trees come from outside the kernel (i.e. they are supplied by the system boot environment). Obviously these device trees cannot be changed at the whim of kernel developers, *and* it is perfectly reasonable to think that software other than the Linux kernel will run on this type of system too. So yes, it is really true, device trees are not a Linux kernel private implementation detail, they are really an external ABI that, although documented in the kernel source tree, cannot be changed in incompatible ways as time progresses. David Daney From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Daney Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 16:59:29 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/44] mfd: as3722: Drop reference to pm_power_off from devicetree bindings Message-Id: <54341BF1.9020001@gmail.com> List-Id: References: <1412659726-29957-1-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <1412659726-29957-6-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <543412F7.8040909@landley.net> <20141007163131.GE28835@roeck-us.net> In-Reply-To: <20141007163131.GE28835@roeck-us.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Guenter Roeck , Rob Landley Cc: linux-m32r-ja@ml.linux-m32r.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, Mark Rutland , devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, lguest@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-c6x-dev@linux-c6x.org, linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Pawel Moll , xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, adi-buildroot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org, linux-am33-list@redhat.com, linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, openipmi-developer@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-metag@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, linux-cris-kernel@axis.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 10/07/2014 09:31 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 11:21:11AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote: >> On 10/07/14 00:28, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>> Devicetree bindings are supposed to be operating system independent >>> and should thus not describe how a specific functionality is implemented >>> in Linux. >> >> So your argument is that linux/Documentation/devicetree/bindings should >> not be specific to Linux. Merely hosted in the Linux kernel source >> repository. >> >> Well that's certainly a point of view. >> > Not specifically my argument, really, and nothing new either. But, yes, I do > think that devicetree bindings descriptions should not include implementation > details, especially since those may change over time (as is the case here). > I fully agree. Many device trees come from outside the kernel (i.e. they are supplied by the system boot environment). Obviously these device trees cannot be changed at the whim of kernel developers, *and* it is perfectly reasonable to think that software other than the Linux kernel will run on this type of system too. So yes, it is really true, device trees are not a Linux kernel private implementation detail, they are really an external ABI that, although documented in the kernel source tree, cannot be changed in incompatible ways as time progresses. David Daney From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Tue, 07 Oct 2014 18:59:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-ie0-f170.google.com ([209.85.223.170]:40552 "EHLO mail-ie0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by eddie.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S27010625AbaJGQ7ikdXtv (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Oct 2014 18:59:38 +0200 Received: by mail-ie0-f170.google.com with SMTP id rd18so5787272iec.15 for ; Tue, 07 Oct 2014 09:59:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=IQmBW/ecm0PlBOnNT1tmvTyGhPpEN+BG3k+K+8XnQAY=; b=pWBorCMq1eXduZiVcf3gaU7QHS/EPu8ZXHWt+PfF9KdK7ozE3k2wh89+u0Q8g8ikqp EQn+BXYNgkI3hRDGELWv+3nLHjQRlfe5O9Vb7vY1STmktBCVFAP+OFAKX0iRnva2EMus JfhaO00M36epbU0e4sCCgGOfCQw2xnM2O2jpfXFxCVdmqPycGvCCW9FgM1HTuS7sr9cB O64d7T/vj6muGVnt2VytRs6qAo+IFyfJul4+FqDxnqY7hEVUfD3Nhf4AypscddyjZTBL u64KIGIicQavYjyK29H/pF4hUkOr006m6zf0ypKh6fXqLkjVnW/y42h5kYgh3AJ3wOtG Ld4Q== X-Received: by 10.50.25.65 with SMTP id a1mr33614579igg.3.1412701172477; Tue, 07 Oct 2014 09:59:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dl.caveonetworks.com (64.2.3.195.ptr.us.xo.net. [64.2.3.195]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id z5sm12441449igl.21.2014.10.07.09.59.29 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 07 Oct 2014 09:59:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <54341BF1.9020001@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 09:59:29 -0700 From: David Daney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Guenter Roeck , Rob Landley CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, adi-buildroot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, lguest@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, linux-am33-list@redhat.com, linux-cris-kernel@axis.com, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org, linux-m32r-ja@ml.linux-m32r.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, openipmi-developer@lists.sourceforge.net, user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-c6x-dev@linux-c6x.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org, linux-metag@vger.kernel.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Rob Herring , Pawel Moll , Mark Rutland Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/44] mfd: as3722: Drop reference to pm_power_off from devicetree bindings References: <1412659726-29957-1-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <1412659726-29957-6-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <543412F7.8040909@landley.net> <20141007163131.GE28835@roeck-us.net> In-Reply-To: <20141007163131.GE28835@roeck-us.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 43070 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: ddaney.cavm@gmail.com Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: linux-mips X-List-ID: linux-mips List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: X-list: linux-mips On 10/07/2014 09:31 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 11:21:11AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote: >> On 10/07/14 00:28, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>> Devicetree bindings are supposed to be operating system independent >>> and should thus not describe how a specific functionality is implemented >>> in Linux. >> >> So your argument is that linux/Documentation/devicetree/bindings should >> not be specific to Linux. Merely hosted in the Linux kernel source >> repository. >> >> Well that's certainly a point of view. >> > Not specifically my argument, really, and nothing new either. But, yes, I do > think that devicetree bindings descriptions should not include implementation > details, especially since those may change over time (as is the case here). > I fully agree. Many device trees come from outside the kernel (i.e. they are supplied by the system boot environment). Obviously these device trees cannot be changed at the whim of kernel developers, *and* it is perfectly reasonable to think that software other than the Linux kernel will run on this type of system too. So yes, it is really true, device trees are not a Linux kernel private implementation detail, they are really an external ABI that, although documented in the kernel source tree, cannot be changed in incompatible ways as time progresses. David Daney From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Daney Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/44] mfd: as3722: Drop reference to pm_power_off from devicetree bindings Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 09:59:29 -0700 Message-ID: <54341BF1.9020001@gmail.com> References: <1412659726-29957-1-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <1412659726-29957-6-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <543412F7.8040909@landley.net> <20141007163131.GE28835@roeck-us.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Cc: linux-m32r-ja@ml.linux-m32r.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, Mark Rutland , devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, lguest@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-c6x-dev@linux-c6x.org, linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Pawel Moll , xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, adi-buildroot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org, linux-am33-list@redhat.com, linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, openipmi-developer@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-metag@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, linux-cris-kernel@axis.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Rob Herrin To: Guenter Roeck , Rob Landley Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20141007163131.GE28835@roeck-us.net> List-Id: Linux Driver Project Developer List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: driverdev-devel-bounces@linuxdriverproject.org On 10/07/2014 09:31 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 11:21:11AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote: >> On 10/07/14 00:28, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>> Devicetree bindings are supposed to be operating system independent >>> and should thus not describe how a specific functionality is implemented >>> in Linux. >> >> So your argument is that linux/Documentation/devicetree/bindings should >> not be specific to Linux. Merely hosted in the Linux kernel source >> repository. >> >> Well that's certainly a point of view. >> > Not specifically my argument, really, and nothing new either. But, yes, I do > think that devicetree bindings descriptions should not include implementation > details, especially since those may change over time (as is the case here). > I fully agree. Many device trees come from outside the kernel (i.e. they are supplied by the system boot environment). Obviously these device trees cannot be changed at the whim of kernel developers, *and* it is perfectly reasonable to think that software other than the Linux kernel will run on this type of system too. So yes, it is really true, device trees are not a Linux kernel private implementation detail, they are really an external ABI that, although documented in the kernel source tree, cannot be changed in incompatible ways as time progresses. David Daney From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Daney Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/44] mfd: as3722: Drop reference to pm_power_off from devicetree bindings Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 09:59:29 -0700 Message-ID: <54341BF1.9020001@gmail.com> References: <1412659726-29957-1-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <1412659726-29957-6-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <543412F7.8040909@landley.net> <20141007163131.GE28835@roeck-us.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20141007163131.GE28835@roeck-us.net> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: driverdev-devel-bounces@linuxdriverproject.org Sender: "devel" List-Archive: List-Post: To: Guenter Roeck , Rob Landley Cc: linux-m32r-ja@ml.linux-m32r.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, Mark Rutland , devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, lguest@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-c6x-dev@linux-c6x.org, linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Pawel Moll , xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, adi-buildroot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org, linux-am33-list@redhat.com, linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, openipmi-developer@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-metag@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, linux-cris-kernel@axis.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 10/07/2014 09:31 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 11:21:11AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote: >> On 10/07/14 00:28, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>> Devicetree bindings are supposed to be operating system independent >>> and should thus not describe how a specific functionality is implemented >>> in Linux. >> >> So your argument is that linux/Documentation/devicetree/bindings should >> not be specific to Linux. Merely hosted in the Linux kernel source >> repository. >> >> Well that's certainly a point of view. >> > Not specifically my argument, really, and nothing new either. But, yes, I do > think that devicetree bindings descriptions should not include implementation > details, especially since those may change over time (as is the case here). > I fully agree. Many device trees come from outside the kernel (i.e. they are supplied by the system boot environment). Obviously these device trees cannot be changed at the whim of kernel developers, *and* it is perfectly reasonable to think that software other than the Linux kernel will run on this type of system too. So yes, it is really true, device trees are not a Linux kernel private implementation detail, they are really an external ABI that, although documented in the kernel source tree, cannot be changed in incompatible ways as time progresses. David Daney From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-ID: <54341BF1.9020001@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 09:59:29 -0700 From: David Daney MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Guenter Roeck , Rob Landley Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/44] mfd: as3722: Drop reference to pm_power_off from devicetree bindings References: <1412659726-29957-1-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <1412659726-29957-6-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <543412F7.8040909@landley.net> <20141007163131.GE28835@roeck-us.net> In-Reply-To: <20141007163131.GE28835@roeck-us.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Cc: linux-m32r-ja@ml.linux-m32r.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, Mark Rutland , devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, lguest@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-c6x-dev@linux-c6x.org, linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Pawel Moll , xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, adi-buildroot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org, linux-am33-list@redhat.com, linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, openipmi-developer@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-metag@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, linux-cris-kernel@axis.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Rob Herring , linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 10/07/2014 09:31 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 11:21:11AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote: >> On 10/07/14 00:28, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>> Devicetree bindings are supposed to be operating system independent >>> and should thus not describe how a specific functionality is implemented >>> in Linux. >> >> So your argument is that linux/Documentation/devicetree/bindings should >> not be specific to Linux. Merely hosted in the Linux kernel source >> repository. >> >> Well that's certainly a point of view. >> > Not specifically my argument, really, and nothing new either. But, yes, I do > think that devicetree bindings descriptions should not include implementation > details, especially since those may change over time (as is the case here). > I fully agree. Many device trees come from outside the kernel (i.e. they are supplied by the system boot environment). Obviously these device trees cannot be changed at the whim of kernel developers, *and* it is perfectly reasonable to think that software other than the Linux kernel will run on this type of system too. So yes, it is really true, device trees are not a Linux kernel private implementation detail, they are really an external ABI that, although documented in the kernel source tree, cannot be changed in incompatible ways as time progresses. David Daney From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ddaney.cavm@gmail.com (David Daney) Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 09:59:29 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 05/44] mfd: as3722: Drop reference to pm_power_off from devicetree bindings In-Reply-To: <20141007163131.GE28835@roeck-us.net> References: <1412659726-29957-1-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <1412659726-29957-6-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <543412F7.8040909@landley.net> <20141007163131.GE28835@roeck-us.net> Message-ID: <54341BF1.9020001@gmail.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 10/07/2014 09:31 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 11:21:11AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote: >> On 10/07/14 00:28, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>> Devicetree bindings are supposed to be operating system independent >>> and should thus not describe how a specific functionality is implemented >>> in Linux. >> >> So your argument is that linux/Documentation/devicetree/bindings should >> not be specific to Linux. Merely hosted in the Linux kernel source >> repository. >> >> Well that's certainly a point of view. >> > Not specifically my argument, really, and nothing new either. But, yes, I do > think that devicetree bindings descriptions should not include implementation > details, especially since those may change over time (as is the case here). > I fully agree. Many device trees come from outside the kernel (i.e. they are supplied by the system boot environment). Obviously these device trees cannot be changed at the whim of kernel developers, *and* it is perfectly reasonable to think that software other than the Linux kernel will run on this type of system too. So yes, it is really true, device trees are not a Linux kernel private implementation detail, they are really an external ABI that, although documented in the kernel source tree, cannot be changed in incompatible ways as time progresses. David Daney From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754593AbaJGQ7l (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Oct 2014 12:59:41 -0400 Received: from mail-ig0-f173.google.com ([209.85.213.173]:42360 "EHLO mail-ig0-f173.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752858AbaJGQ7e (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Oct 2014 12:59:34 -0400 Message-ID: <54341BF1.9020001@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 09:59:29 -0700 From: David Daney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Guenter Roeck , Rob Landley CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, adi-buildroot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, lguest@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, linux-am33-list@redhat.com, linux-cris-kernel@axis.com, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org, linux-m32r-ja@ml.linux-m32r.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, openipmi-developer@lists.sourceforge.net, user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-c6x-dev@linux-c6x.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org, linux-metag@vger.kernel.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Rob Herring , Pawel Moll , Mark Rutland Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/44] mfd: as3722: Drop reference to pm_power_off from devicetree bindings References: <1412659726-29957-1-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <1412659726-29957-6-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <543412F7.8040909@landley.net> <20141007163131.GE28835@roeck-us.net> In-Reply-To: <20141007163131.GE28835@roeck-us.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 10/07/2014 09:31 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 11:21:11AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote: >> On 10/07/14 00:28, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>> Devicetree bindings are supposed to be operating system independent >>> and should thus not describe how a specific functionality is implemented >>> in Linux. >> >> So your argument is that linux/Documentation/devicetree/bindings should >> not be specific to Linux. Merely hosted in the Linux kernel source >> repository. >> >> Well that's certainly a point of view. >> > Not specifically my argument, really, and nothing new either. But, yes, I do > think that devicetree bindings descriptions should not include implementation > details, especially since those may change over time (as is the case here). > I fully agree. Many device trees come from outside the kernel (i.e. they are supplied by the system boot environment). Obviously these device trees cannot be changed at the whim of kernel developers, *and* it is perfectly reasonable to think that software other than the Linux kernel will run on this type of system too. So yes, it is really true, device trees are not a Linux kernel private implementation detail, they are really an external ABI that, although documented in the kernel source tree, cannot be changed in incompatible ways as time progresses. David Daney