From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: richardcochran@gmail.com (Richard Cochran) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 07:04:08 +0200 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> <51F168FC.9070906@wwwdotorg.org> <20130725182920.GA24955@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20130725184834.GA8296@netboy> <20130725213753.GC17616@obsidianresearch.com> <20130726080115.GA5436@netboy> <1374831744.2923.42.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> <20130726130927.GC4219@netboy> <20130726141016.GF9858@sirena.org.uk> Message-ID: <20130727050406.GB4221@netboy> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 08:49:43AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote: > > Long term, final goal is likely to be close to what Russell is saying Why is this a long term goal? Start today. > -- nothing should go into the kernel tree unless the binding is in a > fully stable state. However, we have a transitional period between now > and then, and even when we're at the final state there will be need to > have some sort of sandbox for development and test of future bindings. Why not just set up a git tree right away? > Dealing with all that, as well as the actual process for locking in > bindings, is what needs to be sorted out. > > I think we're all in agreement that bindings that change over time are > nothing but pain, but we're arguing that in circles anyway. No. I keep saying, the bindings must be stable ABI, *today*. You keep saying, maybe later, but until then we will make things up as we go along. Thanks, Richard