From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: matt.porter@linaro.org (Matt Porter)
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 15:58:57 -0400
Subject: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] ARM topic: Is DT on ARM the solution, or
 is there something better?
In-Reply-To: <99db70b50b3ddcf20d940d5855c657e0.squirrel@twosheds.infradead.org>
References: <20131023174458.GC5208@netboy>
 <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>
 <20131024141241.GA25061@ulmo.nvidia.com>
 <99db70b50b3ddcf20d940d5855c657e0.squirrel@twosheds.infradead.org>
Message-ID: <20131024195857.GZ29341@beef>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:22:06PM -0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> 
> > Experimental bindings could be a suitable temporary measure, but perhaps
> > other, better solutions exist.
> 
> Yes, unstable bindings are part of the currently-documented plan. You are
> not expected to need it as a matter of course, but that facility will
> exist.

I know I'm going to be told to wait for the plan but...

Can you elaborate on the notion of "not expected to need [unstable
bindings] as a matter of course"?

-Matt