From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rob Landley Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/44] mfd: as3722: Drop reference to pm_power_off from devicetree bindings Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 12:10:58 -0500 Message-ID: <54341EA2.6010806@landley.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> <54341BF1.9020001@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <54341BF1.9020001-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-metag-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: David Daney , Guenter Roeck Cc: linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, adi-buildroot-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org, devel-gWbeCf7V1WCQmaza687I9mD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org, devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, lguest-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org, linux-acpi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-alpha-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-am33-list-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, linux-cris-kernel-VrBV9hrLPhE@public.gmane.org, linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-hexagon-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-m32r-ja-rQhvJZKUsGBRYuoOT4C5/9i2O/JbrIOy@public.gmane.org, linuxppc-dev-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org, linux-s390-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-tegra-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-xtensa-PjhNF2WwrV/0Sa2dR60CXw@public.gmane.org, openipmi-developer-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org, user-mode-linux-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org, linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, linux-c6x-dev-jPsnJVOj+W6hPH1hqNUYSQ@public.gmane.org, linux-ia64-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-m68k-cunTk1MwBs8S/qaLPR03pWD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org, linux-metag-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-mips-6z/3iImG2C8G8FEW9MqTrA@public.gmane.org, linux-parisc-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-pm-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-sh-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, xen-devel-GuqFBffKawtpuQazS67q72D2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org, Rob Herring On 10/07/14 11:59, David Daney wrote: > 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. Ah. Existing thing with backstory among the in-crowd, so I'll assume "git subtree" was previously suggested and you had that discussion already and decided against it. Carry on, Rob -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-metag" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rob Landley Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 17:10:58 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/44] mfd: as3722: Drop reference to pm_power_off from devicetree bindings Message-Id: <54341EA2.6010806@landley.net> 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> <54341BF1.9020001@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <54341BF1.9020001-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: David Daney , Guenter Roeck Cc: linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, adi-buildroot-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org, devel-gWbeCf7V1WCQmaza687I9mD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org, devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, lguest-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org, linux-acpi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-alpha-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-am33-list-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, linux-cris-kernel-VrBV9hrLPhE@public.gmane.org, linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-hexagon-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-m32r-ja-rQhvJZKUsGBRYuoOT4C5/9i2O/JbrIOy@public.gmane.org, linuxppc-dev-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org, linux-s390-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-tegra-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-xtensa-PjhNF2WwrV/0Sa2dR60CXw@public.gmane.org, openipmi-developer-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org, user-mode-linux-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org, linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, linux-c6x-dev-jPsnJVOj+W6hPH1hqNUYSQ@public.gmane.org, linux-ia64-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-m68k-cunTk1MwBs8S/qaLPR03pWD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org, linux-metag-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-mips-6z/3iImG2C8G8FEW9MqTrA@public.gmane.org, linux-parisc-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-pm-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-sh-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, xen-devel-GuqFBffKawtpuQazS67q72D2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org, Rob Herring On 10/07/14 11:59, David Daney wrote: > 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. Ah. Existing thing with backstory among the in-crowd, so I'll assume "git subtree" was previously suggested and you had that discussion already and decided against it. Carry on, Rob From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Tue, 07 Oct 2014 19:11:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-oi0-f48.google.com ([209.85.218.48]:43218 "EHLO mail-oi0-f48.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by eddie.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S27010625AbaJGRLMGr--6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Oct 2014 19:11:12 +0200 Received: by mail-oi0-f48.google.com with SMTP id g201so5429605oib.7 for ; Tue, 07 Oct 2014 10:11:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Iigiq301J2psOJVWZqvLgIlZ2/eTazdaT0E7BWmj/ps=; b=Ym1MR2WFHnJJ3Qz/cGTclJuudX2NMV4yV41Mkx/jBfjPOEJVDiZjn+dz0ww+qAJSjJ wJnpMPrvtvwgab1vyybFB2XltTdDCx3nuHw/nS1NXGFdlkj27w7ayswSw14OBfKIJW+s hYc7PDtzy1T2dJ2EdO5Fqdn0HLHClcVTYPtyKtB+5y513B91Z4BT6scWzzTgIlKhbgVZ L4Mhz6mcU1zrh0zQcDlxnNcuRvz0y9MM+ozX89DkBz4Yyf1rsX9EK1ZTFOg7tyP+wjvk hiITfJpFO9TFRhbYsquxre00pax3swK03c5roF6L5HOqKJOPvvxxAuraftfqhuxgvG8N bBxw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlDLjsigg29x18Tlg83roPzYO8X22MEI6Lg3Vh4Wk32X6EuBdiOZjw8qosAILhspyRxU4pr X-Received: by 10.60.63.8 with SMTP id c8mr5824681oes.26.1412701865549; Tue, 07 Oct 2014 10:11:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.12] (cpe-72-182-51-248.austin.res.rr.com. [72.182.51.248]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id f8sm12275199oev.4.2014.10.07.10.10.58 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 07 Oct 2014 10:11:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <54341EA2.6010806@landley.net> Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 12:10:58 -0500 From: Rob Landley User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Daney , Guenter Roeck 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> <54341BF1.9020001@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <54341BF1.9020001@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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: 43071 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: rob@landley.net 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 10/07/14 11:59, David Daney wrote: > 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. Ah. Existing thing with backstory among the in-crowd, so I'll assume "git subtree" was previously suggested and you had that discussion already and decided against it. Carry on, Rob From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rob Landley Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/44] mfd: as3722: Drop reference to pm_power_off from devicetree bindings Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 12:10:58 -0500 Message-ID: <54341EA2.6010806@landley.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> <54341BF1.9020001@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, adi-buildroot-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org, devel-gWbeCf7V1WCQmaza687I9mD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org, devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, lguest-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org, linux-acpi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-alpha-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-am33-list-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, linux-cris-kernel-VrBV9hrLPhE@public.gmane.org, linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-hexagon-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-m32r-ja-rQhvJZKUsGBRYuoOT4C5/9i2O/JbrIOy@public.gmane.org, linuxppc-dev-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org, linux-s390-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-tegra-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-xtensa-PjhNF2WwrV/0Sa2dR60CXw@public.gmane.org, openipmi-developer-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org, user-mode-linux-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org, linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, linux-c6x-dev-jPsnJVOj+W6hPH1hqNUYSQ@public.gmane.org, linux-ia64-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-m68k-cunTk1MwBs8S/qaLPR03pWD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org, linux-metag-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-mips-6z/3iImG2C8G8FEW9MqTrA@public.gmane.org, linux-parisc-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-pm-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-sh-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, xen-devel-GuqFBffKawtpuQazS67q72D2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org, Rob Herring , Guenter Roeck Return-path: In-Reply-To: <54341BF1.9020001-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> List-ID: List-Id: linux-parisc.vger.kernel.org On 10/07/14 11:59, David Daney wrote: > 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. Ah. Existing thing with backstory among the in-crowd, so I'll assume "git subtree" was previously suggested and you had that discussion already and decided against it. Carry on, Rob -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-metag" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oi0-f49.google.com (mail-oi0-f49.google.com [209.85.218.49]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 91F031A0A5F for ; Wed, 8 Oct 2014 04:11:07 +1100 (EST) Received: by mail-oi0-f49.google.com with SMTP id a3so2612821oib.8 for ; Tue, 07 Oct 2014 10:11:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <54341EA2.6010806@landley.net> Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 12:10:58 -0500 From: Rob Landley MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Daney , Guenter Roeck 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> <54341BF1.9020001@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <54341BF1.9020001@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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 10/07/14 11:59, David Daney wrote: > 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. Ah. Existing thing with backstory among the in-crowd, so I'll assume "git subtree" was previously suggested and you had that discussion already and decided against it. Carry on, Rob From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: rob@landley.net (Rob Landley) Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 12:10:58 -0500 Subject: [PATCH 05/44] mfd: as3722: Drop reference to pm_power_off from devicetree bindings In-Reply-To: <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> <54341BF1.9020001@gmail.com> Message-ID: <54341EA2.6010806@landley.net> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 10/07/14 11:59, David Daney wrote: > 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. Ah. Existing thing with backstory among the in-crowd, so I'll assume "git subtree" was previously suggested and you had that discussion already and decided against it. Carry on, Rob From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754748AbaJGRLN (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Oct 2014 13:11:13 -0400 Received: from mail-oi0-f53.google.com ([209.85.218.53]:33357 "EHLO mail-oi0-f53.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754712AbaJGRLJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Oct 2014 13:11:09 -0400 Message-ID: <54341EA2.6010806@landley.net> Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 12:10:58 -0500 From: Rob Landley User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Daney , Guenter Roeck 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> <54341BF1.9020001@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <54341BF1.9020001@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 10/07/14 11:59, David Daney wrote: > 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. Ah. Existing thing with backstory among the in-crowd, so I'll assume "git subtree" was previously suggested and you had that discussion already and decided against it. Carry on, Rob