From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: lee.jones@linaro.org (Lee Jones) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 14:55:40 +0100 Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the arm-soc tree with the i2c-embedded tree In-Reply-To: <20120716130015.GF17435@pengutronix.de> References: <20120710164130.f38e4d1673f925ddb13914c9@canb.auug.org.au> <20120712131231.GH2194@pengutronix.de> <20120716101706.GB17435@pengutronix.de> <5003FB7C.4030509@linaro.org> <20120716130015.GF17435@pengutronix.de> Message-ID: <50041D5C.7010904@linaro.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 16/07/12 14:00, Wolfram Sang wrote: >>> What I am afraid of is: tentative solutions tend to stay, because the >>> need for a proper solution is reduced. Yet, finding proper generic >>> bindings might take some time which doesn't meet the high pressure >>> around DT at the moment. >> >> I agree with what you say to some extent, but I believe that it is >> more important to have a working solution now than to ensure that >> each bindings are as unique as possible. After any suggestion of >> consolidation, a move from vendor specific to generically defined >> Device Tree bindings is trivial. Especially in the current stage >> where adaptions and definitions are still fluid. > > See my response to Linus. I do understand your view and where it comes > from. As a maintainer, I have other priorities. No offence involved, > it needs some settlement. I'm certainly not adverse to doing this, although I'd prefer it was completed in the short-term. So should we do it? -- Lee Jones Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead M: +44 77 88 633 515 Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog