From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: w.sang@pengutronix.de (Wolfram Sang) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 15:00:15 +0200 Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the arm-soc tree with the i2c-embedded tree In-Reply-To: <5003FB7C.4030509@linaro.org> References: <20120710164130.f38e4d1673f925ddb13914c9@canb.auug.org.au> <20120712131231.GH2194@pengutronix.de> <20120716101706.GB17435@pengutronix.de> <5003FB7C.4030509@linaro.org> Message-ID: <20120716130015.GF17435@pengutronix.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org > >What I am afraid of is: tentative solutions tend to stay, because the > >need for a proper solution is reduced. Yet, finding proper generic > >bindings might take some time which doesn't meet the high pressure > >around DT at the moment. > > I agree with what you say to some extent, but I believe that it is > more important to have a working solution now than to ensure that > each bindings are as unique as possible. After any suggestion of > consolidation, a move from vendor specific to generically defined > Device Tree bindings is trivial. Especially in the current stage > where adaptions and definitions are still fluid. See my response to Linus. I do understand your view and where it comes from. As a maintainer, I have other priorities. No offence involved, it needs some settlement. -- Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: