From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qe0-f43.google.com ([209.85.128.43]:38025 "EHLO mail-qe0-f43.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758263Ab3HNPNt (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Aug 2013 11:13:49 -0400 Received: by mail-qe0-f43.google.com with SMTP id k5so5119278qej.16 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 08:13:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bill-the-cat (cpe-065-184-250-089.ec.res.rr.com. [65.184.250.89]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id c6sm2134934qar.6.2013.08.14.08.13.47 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 14 Aug 2013 08:13:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 11:13:45 -0400 From: Tom Rini Subject: [RFC] Best practices for hardware shipping device trees Message-ID: <20130814151345.GA2983@bill-the-cat> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: devicetree-owner@vger.kernel.org To: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hey all, Do we have a document yet talking about the best practices for how we would like a hardware vendor to ship, store and possibly update a device tree, on the hardware? "However they like" seems likely to invite problems down the line with everyone trying their own thing. Thanks! -- Tom