From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: richardcochran@gmail.com (Richard Cochran) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 19:37:48 +0200 Subject: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] DT bindings as ABI [was: Do we have people interested in device tree janitoring / cleanup?] In-Reply-To: <20130727104018.GC9858@sirena.org.uk> 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> <20130726045433.GB4100@netboy> <20130726171524.GB28895@obsidianresearch.com> <20130727084825.GA4707@netboy> <20130727104018.GC9858@sirena.org.uk> Message-ID: <20130727173748.GA4813@netboy> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 11:40:18AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 10:48:26AM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote: > > > [ I disagree about the "more thought" part. The current discussion, > > coming years too late after the introduction of DT to ARM Linux, is > > contrary evidence enough. ] > > We did have exactly the same discussion when the DT transition was > started - this isn't something that people only just realised might be > an issue. There was a deliberate decision to focus on getting the > technology deployed to the point where it could be used as a straight > replacement for board files and accept that sometimes the results won't > be perfect and that we may need to rework as a result. Can you tell a bit more about this decision? When was it made? Who made it? How was it made public? Thanks, Richard