[ARM ATTEND] DeviceTree status

[ARM ATTEND] DeviceTree status

[Rob Herring]

I will be attending ELC. I think I may be the only DT maintainer
attending (the rest were too scared).

For the ARM summit, I can give a summary of what's happened in DT land
since the last ARM summit. There's been some good progress although
probably not as much as anyone would like. Given the last summit, I'm
sure there is more to discuss. If not, I'm available for beers to
celebrate solving all the issues. ;)

A key question to discuss is: are DT binding reviews improving?

I also think the process for handling stable vs. unstable bindings
needs more discussion. We also need to discuss how to deprecate
existing "stable" bindings in order to have a way to stop new usage of
poorly designed bindings we want to phase out.

Rob

[ARM ATTEND] DeviceTree status

[Ben Dooks]

On 24/03/14 14:55, Rob Herring wrote:
> I will be attending ELC. I think I may be the only DT maintainer
> attending (the rest were too scared).

I thought Grant was listed?

> For the ARM summit, I can give a summary of what's happened in DT land
> since the last ARM summit. There's been some good progress although
> probably not as much as anyone would like. Given the last summit, I'm
> sure there is more to discuss. If not, I'm available for beers to
> celebrate solving all the issues. ;)


-- 
Ben Dooks				http://www.codethink.co.uk/
Senior Engineer				Codethink - Providing Genius

[ARM ATTEND] DeviceTree status

[Grant Likely]

On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 10:35:12 +0000, Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk> wrote:
> On 24/03/14 14:55, Rob Herring wrote:
> > I will be attending ELC. I think I may be the only DT maintainer
> > attending (the rest were too scared).
> 
> I thought Grant was listed?

I have a family conflict. I will not be there.

g.

[ARM ATTEND] DeviceTree status

[Florian Fainelli]

2014-03-24 7:55 GMT-07:00 Rob Herring <robherring2@gmail.com>:
> I will be attending ELC. I think I may be the only DT maintainer
> attending (the rest were too scared).
>
> For the ARM summit, I can give a summary of what's happened in DT land
> since the last ARM summit. There's been some good progress although
> probably not as much as anyone would like. Given the last summit, I'm
> sure there is more to discuss. If not, I'm available for beers to
> celebrate solving all the issues. ;)
>
> A key question to discuss is: are DT binding reviews improving?

Based on the following email: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/3/22/143, did
you define when the mini-summit is going to happen? I would be able to
make it provided it is not on Monday, Apr. 28th. On a related note, I
believe it would be good to ensure that all relevant maintainers get
substantial Device Tree knowledge best practices, such that DT
maintainers can focus on other tasks and get progressively less
swamped with various bindings to review...

>
> I also think the process for handling stable vs. unstable bindings
> needs more discussion. We also need to discuss how to deprecate
> existing "stable" bindings in order to have a way to stop new usage of
> poorly designed bindings we want to phase out.

[ARM ATTEND] DeviceTree status

[Kevin Hilman]

Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> writes:

> 2014-03-24 7:55 GMT-07:00 Rob Herring <robherring2@gmail.com>:
>> I will be attending ELC. I think I may be the only DT maintainer
>> attending (the rest were too scared).
>>
>> For the ARM summit, I can give a summary of what's happened in DT land
>> since the last ARM summit. There's been some good progress although
>> probably not as much as anyone would like. Given the last summit, I'm
>> sure there is more to discuss. If not, I'm available for beers to
>> celebrate solving all the issues. ;)
>>
>> A key question to discuss is: are DT binding reviews improving?
>
> Based on the following email: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/3/22/143, did
> you define when the mini-summit is going to happen?  I would be able
> to make it provided it is not on Monday, Apr. 28th.

Yes, it was announced, and it's on Monday, sorry:

   http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-March/240318.html

Kevin

[ARM ATTEND] DeviceTree status

[Olof Johansson]

Hi,

Doing a generic reply on an old post, there's been many about DT though:

On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 7:55 AM, Rob Herring <robherring2@gmail.com> wrote:
> I will be attending ELC. I think I may be the only DT maintainer
> attending (the rest were too scared).
>
> For the ARM summit, I can give a summary of what's happened in DT land
> since the last ARM summit. There's been some good progress although
> probably not as much as anyone would like. Given the last summit, I'm
> sure there is more to discuss. If not, I'm available for beers to
> celebrate solving all the issues. ;)

I'm actually not excited about more discussion. There was a _ton_ of
it in Edinburgh, with many decisions done. Unless people have gone off
to actually try to implement some of the things we agreed need to be
implemented, and now need to come back with "it didn't work, we need
to change everything", then we shouldn't have to meet and spend
another mind-numbing day discussing DT. Or do we?

> A key question to discuss is: are DT binding reviews improving?

Hm. Do we need to meet in a room to talk about that, or can we discuss
it over email?

I would say that they have improved, in particular because we've
started seeing more DT changes go in (and more bindings). There are
some areas that are still difficult, and I think the answer for those
is to find the right people and sit down and hash it out. ELC is
probably a good venue for some of that, but doing it in a room full of
ARM kernel maintainers might not be.

> I also think the process for handling stable vs. unstable bindings
> needs more discussion. We also need to discuss how to deprecate
> existing "stable" bindings in order to have a way to stop new usage of
> poorly designed bindings we want to phase out.

Do you have a proposal and a process in mind? Having something
specific to start a discussion off of is more useful than opening it
up for round table talks.


-Olof

[ARM ATTEND] DeviceTree status

[Laurent Pinchart]

Hi Olof,

On Wednesday 02 April 2014 22:16:33 Olof Johansson wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Doing a generic reply on an old post, there's been many about DT though:
> 
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 7:55 AM, Rob Herring <robherring2@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I will be attending ELC. I think I may be the only DT maintainer
> > attending (the rest were too scared).
> > 
> > For the ARM summit, I can give a summary of what's happened in DT land
> > since the last ARM summit. There's been some good progress although
> > probably not as much as anyone would like. Given the last summit, I'm
> > sure there is more to discuss. If not, I'm available for beers to
> > celebrate solving all the issues. ;)
> 
> I'm actually not excited about more discussion. There was a _ton_ of
> it in Edinburgh, with many decisions done. Unless people have gone off
> to actually try to implement some of the things we agreed need to be
> implemented, and now need to come back with "it didn't work, we need
> to change everything", then we shouldn't have to meet and spend
> another mind-numbing day discussing DT. Or do we?
> 
> > A key question to discuss is: are DT binding reviews improving?
> 
> Hm. Do we need to meet in a room to talk about that, or can we discuss
> it over email?
> 
> I would say that they have improved, in particular because we've
> started seeing more DT changes go in (and more bindings). There are
> some areas that are still difficult, and I think the answer for those
> is to find the right people and sit down and hash it out. ELC is
> probably a good venue for some of that, but doing it in a room full of
> ARM kernel maintainers might not be.

That's a good point. Would it make sense to move DT discussions to a BoF at 
the ELC ?

> > I also think the process for handling stable vs. unstable bindings
> > needs more discussion. We also need to discuss how to deprecate
> > existing "stable" bindings in order to have a way to stop new usage of
> > poorly designed bindings we want to phase out.
> 
> Do you have a proposal and a process in mind? Having something
> specific to start a discussion off of is more useful than opening it
> up for round table talks.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart