From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: richardcochran@gmail.com (Richard Cochran)
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 10:01:15 +0200
Subject: DT bindings as ABI [was: Do we have people interested in device
 tree janitoring / cleanup?]
In-Reply-To: <20130725213753.GC17616@obsidianresearch.com>
References: <CAOesGMhJ+je8FZqeFxhAcYwU0CHYer+aGP6DA_8x3azrzfA2sw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130725175702.GC22291@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
 <51F168FC.9070906@wwwdotorg.org>
 <20130725182920.GA24955@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
 <20130725184834.GA8296@netboy>
 <20130725213753.GC17616@obsidianresearch.com>
Message-ID: <20130726080115.GA5436@netboy>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 03:37:53PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> 
> We use DT has a kernel configuration input. Our environment is
> designed to guarantee 100% that the kernel and DT match exactly. DT
> very deliberately isn't an ABI boundary in our systems.

Think about what you just said.

The DT describes the *hardware* not the kernel. Why should you ever
need to update your DT at all?

(Hint: the answer is, because the DT system is broken.)

Thanks,
Richard