From: sf84@laposte.net (Sebastian Frias)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: ARM, SoC: About the use DT-defined properties by 3rd-party drivers
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 10:24:51 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <57D90953.9030701@laposte.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160913154722.GD23336@leverpostej>
Hi Mark,
On 09/13/2016 05:47 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>> If you believe that the bindings don't matter, then there is absolutely
>>> no reason for them to exist in the first place.
>>>
>>> If those binding matter to *anyone*, then those collating the bindings
>>> have some responsibility of stewardship, and that includes
>>> review/maintenance/etc.
>>
>> The thing is that right now it seems the "responsibility of stewardship"
>> lies only within "Linux", whereas DT is proposed as open for everybody,
>> Bootloaders, FreeBSD, etc.
>>
>> In that case, shouldn't the "responsibility" be shared?
>
> Ideally, yes.
>
> Which is one of the reasons devicetree.org was set up as a common forum
> for projects to collaborate on devicetree.
I see, what about using different 'sections' on a DT to allow different
parties be responsible for their 'section'?
- 'generic' sections (i.e.: those using bindings used by Linux drivers)
would be under stewardship of Linux.
- 'specific' sections (i.e.: my example, bindings *not used by Linux*, but
they could be bindings for other OSs as you said) would be under a
different stewardship.
DT seems essentially free-form, like XML.
One could imagine that some tool could then be used to guarantee that
some parts of DT conform to a given XML schema, including backwards
compatibility, while at the same time ignoring 'staging'/'specific' stuff.
NOTE: this appears to be possible using 'overlays' as Warner suggested, but
in that case not all parts are public, which limits public information.
Best regards,
Sebastian
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Sebastian Frias <sf84@laposte.net>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: devicetree <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
Mason <slash.tmp@free.fr>, Timur Tabi <timur@tabi.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: ARM, SoC: About the use DT-defined properties by 3rd-party drivers
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 10:24:51 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <57D90953.9030701@laposte.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160913154722.GD23336@leverpostej>
Hi Mark,
On 09/13/2016 05:47 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>> If you believe that the bindings don't matter, then there is absolutely
>>> no reason for them to exist in the first place.
>>>
>>> If those binding matter to *anyone*, then those collating the bindings
>>> have some responsibility of stewardship, and that includes
>>> review/maintenance/etc.
>>
>> The thing is that right now it seems the "responsibility of stewardship"
>> lies only within "Linux", whereas DT is proposed as open for everybody,
>> Bootloaders, FreeBSD, etc.
>>
>> In that case, shouldn't the "responsibility" be shared?
>
> Ideally, yes.
>
> Which is one of the reasons devicetree.org was set up as a common forum
> for projects to collaborate on devicetree.
I see, what about using different 'sections' on a DT to allow different
parties be responsible for their 'section'?
- 'generic' sections (i.e.: those using bindings used by Linux drivers)
would be under stewardship of Linux.
- 'specific' sections (i.e.: my example, bindings *not used by Linux*, but
they could be bindings for other OSs as you said) would be under a
different stewardship.
DT seems essentially free-form, like XML.
One could imagine that some tool could then be used to guarantee that
some parts of DT conform to a given XML schema, including backwards
compatibility, while at the same time ignoring 'staging'/'specific' stuff.
NOTE: this appears to be possible using 'overlays' as Warner suggested, but
in that case not all parts are public, which limits public information.
Best regards,
Sebastian
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-09-14 8:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 71+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-08-24 14:29 ARM,SoC: About the use DT-defined properties by 3rd-party drivers Sebastian Frias
2016-08-24 14:29 ` Sebastian Frias
2016-08-28 20:36 ` ARM, SoC: " Timur Tabi
2016-08-28 20:36 ` ARM,SoC: " Timur Tabi
2016-08-28 20:36 ` ARM, SoC: " Timur Tabi
2016-09-12 12:29 ` Sebastian Frias
2016-09-12 12:29 ` ARM,SoC: " Sebastian Frias
2016-09-12 12:38 ` ARM, SoC: " Mark Rutland
2016-09-12 12:38 ` ARM,SoC: " Mark Rutland
2016-09-12 12:38 ` Mark Rutland
2016-09-12 13:15 ` ARM, SoC: " Sebastian Frias
2016-09-12 13:15 ` ARM,SoC: " Sebastian Frias
2016-09-12 13:23 ` ARM, SoC: " Timur Tabi
2016-09-12 13:23 ` ARM,SoC: " Timur Tabi
2016-09-12 14:01 ` ARM, SoC: " Mark Rutland
2016-09-12 14:01 ` Mark Rutland
2016-09-12 14:26 ` Warner Losh
2016-09-12 14:26 ` Warner Losh
2016-09-12 14:26 ` Warner Losh
2016-09-12 16:29 ` Sebastian Frias
2016-09-12 16:29 ` Sebastian Frias
2016-09-12 16:45 ` Warner Losh
2016-09-12 16:45 ` Warner Losh
2016-09-12 16:49 ` Timur Tabi
2016-09-12 16:49 ` Timur Tabi
2016-09-12 17:07 ` Mark Rutland
2016-09-12 17:07 ` Mark Rutland
2016-09-12 17:06 ` Mark Rutland
2016-09-12 17:06 ` Mark Rutland
2016-09-12 17:06 ` Mark Rutland
2016-09-12 16:07 ` Sebastian Frias
2016-09-12 16:07 ` Sebastian Frias
2016-09-12 16:07 ` Sebastian Frias
2016-09-12 16:21 ` Timur Tabi
2016-09-12 16:21 ` Timur Tabi
2016-09-12 16:21 ` Timur Tabi
2016-09-12 16:26 ` Sebastian Frias
2016-09-12 16:26 ` Sebastian Frias
2016-09-12 16:26 ` Sebastian Frias
2016-09-12 16:56 ` Mark Rutland
2016-09-12 16:56 ` Mark Rutland
2016-09-12 16:56 ` Mark Rutland
2016-09-13 10:04 ` Sebastian Frias
2016-09-13 10:04 ` Sebastian Frias
2016-09-13 10:04 ` Sebastian Frias
2016-09-13 11:37 ` Timur Tabi
2016-09-13 11:37 ` Timur Tabi
2016-09-13 11:37 ` Timur Tabi
2016-09-13 13:23 ` Mark Rutland
2016-09-13 13:23 ` Mark Rutland
2016-09-13 13:23 ` Mark Rutland
2016-09-13 13:12 ` Mark Rutland
2016-09-13 13:12 ` Mark Rutland
2016-09-13 13:12 ` Mark Rutland
2016-09-13 14:22 ` Sebastian Frias
2016-09-13 14:22 ` Sebastian Frias
2016-09-13 14:22 ` Sebastian Frias
2016-09-13 14:51 ` Mark Rutland
2016-09-13 14:51 ` Mark Rutland
2016-09-13 14:51 ` Mark Rutland
2016-09-14 8:32 ` Sebastian Frias
2016-09-14 8:32 ` Sebastian Frias
2016-09-14 8:32 ` Sebastian Frias
2016-09-13 14:55 ` Sebastian Frias
2016-09-13 14:55 ` Sebastian Frias
2016-09-13 14:55 ` Sebastian Frias
2016-09-13 15:47 ` Mark Rutland
2016-09-13 15:47 ` Mark Rutland
2016-09-13 15:47 ` Mark Rutland
2016-09-14 8:24 ` Sebastian Frias [this message]
2016-09-14 8:24 ` Sebastian Frias
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=57D90953.9030701@laposte.net \
--to=sf84@laposte.net \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.