From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kumar Gala Subject: Re: The new DTS language enhancements Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 22:45:16 -0500 Message-ID: <11973616-0AA9-4CA4-BC12-7B896DDF533C@kernel.crashing.org> References: <1222889827.28471.3.camel@ld0161-tx32> <3643ED8C-2AED-405A-8C7E-432FB311DE6A@kernel.crashing.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"; DelSp="yes" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-mnsaURCQ41sdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org Errors-To: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-mnsaURCQ41sdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org To: Grant Likely Cc: devicetree-discuss List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Oct 1, 2008, at 5:51 PM, Grant Likely wrote: > On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Kumar Gala > wrote: >> >> On Oct 1, 2008, at 2:37 PM, Jon Loeliger wrote: >> >>> Folks, >>> >>> We have had some internal discussion inside Freescale >>> about my proposed DTS language enhancements now. >>> We feel that we have significant need for this approach, >>> and in the absence of a solid alternate proposal, >>> we would like to move forward with it. >> >> I agree with Jon here... if people aren't going to have useful >> comments on >> what changes need to be made to Jon's work we'd (Freescale) like to >> see a >> dtc-2.0 with these changes and getting those changes into the >> kernel for >> 2.6.28. > > Jon's changes are non-trivial and have long lasting implications. > First posting of the changes was made on Sept 23, just over a week > ago. Jon told me about the new design only a month ago. Not a lot of > time. > > This is not the same as adding a new driver or supporting a new SoC. > The consequences have considerable broader reach. Time must be > allowed for us to mull over the design. > > Merging for 2.6.28 is too aggressive. > > I appreciate that you're frustrated with the lack of alternate > proposals, but there hasn't been enough time yet. I understand the short window, but if there isn't useful feedback what is one to do? Just saying I don't like your solution and leaving at this isn't productive. I'm all for getting this done right, but we need constructive feedback. There are clearly some high level differences of opinions. The only way I see of addressing those is by who is putting up code to address the problem versus not.. Jon's proposed a solution.. if no one else is (I know David's mentioned he's working on something) than it seems that wins by defacto. I think David should be more transparent on what's he doing/thinking so we all can discuss it rather than us not knowing if/when he might produce something (and I've respond in such to him). - k