From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wolfram Sang Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm-soc tree with the i2c-embedded tree Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 12:17:06 +0200 Message-ID: <20120716101706.GB17435@pengutronix.de> References: <20120710164130.f38e4d1673f925ddb13914c9@canb.auug.org.au> <20120712131231.GH2194@pengutronix.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="MW5yreqqjyrRcusr" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Walleij Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Olof Johansson , Arnd Bergmann , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Lee Jones , Alessandro Rubini , Linus Walleij , Stephen Warren , Deepak Saxena , devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, Grant Likely List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org --MW5yreqqjyrRcusr Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Well I think I ACKed that from the point of view that it will work as > expected with ux500 with these bindings. What is best from the I2C > subsystem point of view is another question ... Okay, thanks for clarifying. > Overall I think we have this general problem with a lot of DT > conversion happening right now: the tempo is set very high and > all chip vendors want DT support RealQuickNowPreferrablyYesterday > and that makes it hard for subsystem maintainers to hold back, > and I also fear vendor-specific properties are overused for this > reason. Word. > And about the perpetual nature of device tree bindings it > appears to me that the modus operandi right now is to not > regard any of these as written in stone until they are removed > from the kernel tree. We have plenty of drivers patching > trees and drivers in one for the moment. I don't get this one. Yes, they are of perpetual nature, so how could we remove them from the kernel tree? 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. Regards, Wolfram --=20 Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | --MW5yreqqjyrRcusr Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlAD6iIACgkQD27XaX1/VRtxEACfZtHvrw1MIgXyO1xqL9gXN3MA YAIAnjsEPtmTIatHwp4A0OjqtcOed/KL =+TIl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --MW5yreqqjyrRcusr--