From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: dwmw2@infradead.org (David Woodhouse)
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 14:38:16 -0000
Subject: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] ARM topic: Is DT on ARM the solution, or
 is there something better?
In-Reply-To: <20131024142347.GD25061@ulmo.nvidia.com>
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>
 <20131024142347.GD25061@ulmo.nvidia.com>
Message-ID: <818aaae744e58e37c6641d41912d0ba2.squirrel@twosheds.infradead.org>
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.
>
> Can you point me to the documented plan? I must have missed it.

It's not quite out there yet.

It was thrashed out in the ARM summit yesterday, and Grant and I will be
polishing the draft tonight before presenting it to the Kernel Summit
tomorrow.


-- 
dwmw2