From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linux@roeck-us.net (Guenter Roeck) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 12:16:00 -0700 Subject: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] ARM topic: Is DT on ARM the solution, or is there something better? In-Reply-To: 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: <20131022191600.GA28630@roeck-us.net> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 07:21:46PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 22 October 2013 18:42, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > Having "stable" DT bindings is just a dream. Experience so far is > > showing that this is neither practical nor realistic. > > > > The unstructured free-for-all approach isn't good either. Some > > compromise between the two extremes needs to be found. > > While I entirely agree that the concept of DT bindings as stable > ABI is a complete pipe dream, it would be nice if we could have > some suitably restricted parts of it that are defined as stable, > for the benefit of tools like kvmtool and QEMU which construct > device tree blobs from scratch to describe the virtual machine > environment. (That means roughly CPUs, RAM, virtio-mmio > devices and a UART at least.) > > As the person who has to maintain the device-tree-writing > code for ARM QEMU, I'd actually trust a carefully limited > guarantee of ABI stability for specific bindings much more > than I do the current airy promises that everything is stable. > Agreed. I like the idea of Documentation/ABI, though of course it would help if its contents would move from testing/ to stable/ at some point ;-). Guenter