From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com (Jason Gunthorpe) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 11:13:46 -0600 Subject: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] ARM topic: Is DT on ARM the solution, or is there something better? In-Reply-To: <20131022150426.GF29341@beef> References: <52644A9E.3060007@wwwdotorg.org> <20131020220839.GT2443@sirena.org.uk> <5264576F.6050307@wwwdotorg.org> <52658EBC.8020800@wwwdotorg.org> <20131022093923.GC15640@ulmo.nvidia.com> <20131022150426.GF29341@beef> Message-ID: <20131022171346.GE4061@obsidianresearch.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 11:04:26AM -0400, Matt Porter wrote: > DT has many benefits. It would be great to leverage them as long as it > doesn't interfere with the rate of change and willingness to evolve code > that's always been the strength of the kernel process. That strength is > too valuable to trade away for the "DT as ABI" vision. I agree with this, and have posted similar things before. The question I asked last time this came up, which was left unaswered: Who does this stable DT ABI vision benifit, and how much is that benifit worth? As an embedded ODM, I don't get very much value out of it, and I think others in my space would say the same. I continue to think the embedded vs not embedded are different and it makes no sense to pretend that my embedded system has the same requirements as something like a chromebook. Jason