From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave.Martin@arm.com (Dave Martin) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 12:06:34 +0100 Subject: Do we have people interested in device tree janitoring / cleanup? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20130725110634.GB2546@localhost.localdomain> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 08:27:13AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote: > Every now and then I come across a binding that's just done Wrong(tm), > merged through a submaintainer tree and hasn't seen proper review -- > if it had, it wouldn't look the way it does. It's something we're > starting to address now since there's more people stepping up to be > maintainers, but there's a backlog of bad bindings already merged. > > Often they are produced by translating the platform_data structures > directly over into device-tree properties without consideration to > describing the hardware or usual conventions, using key/value pairs > instead of boolean properties, etc. > > Getting involved in cleaning up these kind of bindings is a great way > to learn "the ways of device tree" for someone that has interest in > that. > > Latest find in this area is the Maxim 8925 bindings, that I came > across since they caused a compile warning on some defconfig. I'll > post a patch to address the warning but if someone else feels like > fixing the bindings on top of it that would be appreciated! DT bindings (even poorly conceived, ad-hoc and/or undocumented ones) are ABI. A review/merge process which _allows_ junk into an ABI is the real problem we need to solve here, but once it's there we can't just magic it away. Do we plan on having a proper deprecation path for the junk, so that the old, superseded bindings continue to work for a limited time, preferably with a big fat warning somewhere? Cheers ---Dave