From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mbizon@freebox.fr (Maxime Bizon) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 16:33:39 +0200 Subject: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] ARM topic: Is DT on ARM the solution, or is there something better? In-Reply-To: <20131024141955.GB25061@ulmo.nvidia.com> References: <20131023174458.GC5208@netboy> <1382553982.31058.10.camel@sakura.staff.proxad.net> <20131024095232.27BBCC4039D@trevor.secretlab.ca> <1382614439.6040.16.camel@sakura.staff.proxad.net> <1382615278.8522.72.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> <20131024122346.GD11296@ulmo.nvidia.com> <1382619655.6040.52.camel@sakura.staff.proxad.net> <516bfc7f9366ff3ef9187c36dd160888.squirrel@twosheds.infradead.org> <1382621431.6040.66.camel@sakura.staff.proxad.net> <20131024141955.GB25061@ulmo.nvidia.com> Message-ID: <1382625219.6040.96.camel@sakura.staff.proxad.net> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 16:19 +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > We treated DT the same way we had treated platform data before, which > has inevitable lead to the current mess, which is only slightly better > than what we used to have. Side question, in your point of view, how is that better ? current DT tools are not able to validate a file wrt its schema, so for now we just moved platdata to DTS files and lost compiler type checking in between. I respectfully understand people fighting for *stable* DT because I see the benefits behind this, even if IMO they absolutely do not outweigh the pain. But I fail to see any benefits of "forever unstable" DT, if you have to tie the kernel tree with a DTB file, the description could have been left in C code. -- Maxime