From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Grant Likely Subject: Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] [ATTEND] Handling of devicetree bindings Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 06:51:08 +0100 Message-ID: <20130720055108.7480A3E1663@localhost> References: <20130713192647.GA3798@katana> <20130713204927.GA1124@roeck-us.net> <20130714181331.GC26513@roeck-us.net> <20130715082915.5142547a@lwn.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org Sender: "devicetree-discuss" To: Linus Walleij , Jonathan Corbet Cc: "devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org" , ksummit-2013-discuss-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, Guenter Roeck List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 23:07:36 +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > > > Do we need a kernel summit discussion, or do we just need a good > > document? Or, to phrase the question another way, are we lacking a > > consensus among the clueful regarding how device tree bindings should be > > designed, or are we simply lacking education? > > I think both. I fear some maintainers do not know enough about > the subject to know if a binding should be rejected. I think that it would make more sense to be a topic at an ARM maintainers summit with the output being a *short* guidance statement for all maintainers stating who is responsible for approving and merging new bindings. g.