From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: richardcochran@gmail.com (Richard Cochran) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 16:32:52 +0200 Subject: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] ARM topic: Is DT on ARM the solution, or is there something better? In-Reply-To: <20131024141955.GB25061@ulmo.nvidia.com> References: <1382553982.31058.10.camel@sakura.staff.proxad.net> <20131024095232.27BBCC4039D@trevor.secretlab.ca> <1382614439.6040.16.camel@sakura.staff.proxad.net> <1382615278.8522.72.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> <20131024122346.GD11296@ulmo.nvidia.com> <1382619655.6040.52.camel@sakura.staff.proxad.net> <516bfc7f9366ff3ef9187c36dd160888.squirrel@twosheds.infradead.org> <1382621431.6040.66.camel@sakura.staff.proxad.net> <20131024141955.GB25061@ulmo.nvidia.com> Message-ID: <20131024143251.GA4096@netboy> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 04:19:56PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > > While I agree that many of these screwups shouldn't have happened in the > first place, it's nothing that we were prepared for two years ago. At > some point everyone agreed that DT was the way forward, so DT is what we > did. Nobody said anything about stable ABI back then, so nobody cared. The idea of a device tree has not changed. I guess the arm crowd jumped on the DT bandwagon with no clue what it was about. > We treated DT the same way we had treated platform data before, which > has inevitable lead to the current mess, which is only slightly better > than what we used to have. So, are you saying that arm/dt is a failure? (I won't argue with you on that point.) Thanks, Richard