From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: jason@lakedaemon.net (Jason Cooper)
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 17:05:03 -0500
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] thermal: armada: Remove support for A375-Z1 SoC
In-Reply-To: <20141121225122.1165b466@free-electrons.com>
References: <1415116839-4323-1-git-send-email-ezequiel.garcia@free-electrons.com>
 <1415116839-4323-2-git-send-email-ezequiel.garcia@free-electrons.com>
 <20141120193804.GA7252@developer>
 <20141121201858.GB22670@titan.lakedaemon.net>
 <20141121225122.1165b466@free-electrons.com>
Message-ID: <20141121220503.GJ22670@titan.lakedaemon.net>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 10:51:22PM +0100, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Dear Jason Cooper,
> 
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2014 15:18:58 -0500, Jason Cooper wrote:
> 
> > > First of, I would like to mention that best thing to avoid such
> > > situation is to be careful when documenting dt entries that represent hw
> > > that no one has access to (except internal people).
> > 
> > Agreed, mainline support for an SoC so early in it's lifetime was new
> > for all of us.  Lesson learned.
> 
> So the suggestion would be to not document the DT bindings at all,
> until we reach a "stable" hardware that is distributed externally?

No, I think it's better to document.  However, we should also document
the fact that the binding is for an early version of the SoC and subject
to incompatible change once the production version of the SoC is
released.  ie, an un-stable binding.

thx,

Jason.

> I don't mind adjusting how DT bindings are documented for such early
> SoCs stepping. But I really believe it's important to have a way to
> handle this situation nicely: we've been asking for years SoC vendors
> to start upstreaming their code early. Now that they start to do it, we
> shouldn't complain and instead adapt to this situation :-)

Does the above proposal meet your expectations?

thx,

Jason.