From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: wsa@the-dreams.de (Wolfram Sang) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 20:40:00 +0100 Subject: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] [RFC] of: Allow for experimental device tree bindings In-Reply-To: <20131023185909.GC7863@ulmo.nvidia.com> References: <1382540779-6334-1-git-send-email-treding@nvidia.com> <5267FA58.9050002@wwwdotorg.org> <20131023172001.GA3379@katana> <20131023185909.GC7863@ulmo.nvidia.com> Message-ID: <20131023193959.GA6777@katana> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org > > I'd even go further and use "unstable-" as the prefix instead of "!" > > which is way more explicit. > > I guess unstable- is as good as anything. I personally think that "!" is > disturbing enough to the eye to make it abundantly clear that something > is fishy. "!" marks the binding as "special" whatever that is. A busy person might decide to not look that up as long as it works right now. "unstable-" (or maybe "unstable!-" ;)) is explicit so people know what they get. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: