From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: dwmw2@infradead.org (David Woodhouse) Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2013 11:18:35 +0100 Subject: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] DT bindings as ABI [was: Do we have people interested in device tree janitoring / cleanup?] In-Reply-To: References: <20130725175702.GC22291@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <1999586.84BnWE5EUh@thinkpad> <20130731191209.GA8027@netboy> <1409617.9untvfnOTJ@flatron> <20130731200017.GC8027@netboy> <20130731201457.GA24642@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20130731204817.GC24642@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <1375352315.22084.138.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, 2013-07-31 at 17:26 -0400, jonsmirl at gmail.com wrote: > Alternatively you may be of the belief that it is impossible to get > rid of the board specific code. But x86 doesn't have any of it, why > should ARM? The reason x86 doesn't have it is because it carries three decades worth of legacy baggage so that it can still look like a 1980s IBM PC when necessary. There *have* been some x86 platforms which abandon that legacy crap, and for those we *do* have board-specific code. (Is James still maintaining Voyager support? It feels very strange to talk about Voyager with it *not* being the 'legacy crap' in question...) We've even seen *recent* attempts to abandon the legacy crap in the embedded x86 space, which backtracked and added it all back again ? in part because x86 lacked any sane way to describe the hardware if it wasn't pretending to be a PC. ACPI doesn't cut it, and DT "wasn't invented here"... Unless you want the ARM world to settle on a strategy of "all the world is an Assabet", I'd be careful what you wish for... -- dwmw2 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 5745 bytes Desc: not available URL: