From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Warren Subject: Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] [RFC] of: Allow for experimental device tree bindings Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 23:29:33 +0100 Message-ID: <52699F4D.7030805@wwwdotorg.org> References: <1382540779-6334-1-git-send-email-treding@nvidia.com> <5267FA58.9050002@wwwdotorg.org> <20131023172001.GA3379@katana> <20131024083459.48FE3C4039D@trevor.secretlab.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20131024083459.48FE3C4039D-WNowdnHR2B42iJbIjFUEsiwD8/FfD2ys@public.gmane.org> Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Grant Likely , Wolfram Sang Cc: devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, ksummit-2013-discuss-cunTk1MwBs98uUxBSJOaYoYkZiVZrdSR2LY78lusg7I@public.gmane.org, Thierry Reding , linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 10/24/2013 09:34 AM, Grant Likely wrote: > On Wed, 23 Oct 2013 18:20:02 +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: >> >>> Do we really want to polute the drivers and DT files with a ! in the >>> compatible values? I thought we'd considered that, but chosen having the >>> drivers that use unstable bindings depend on a Kconfig option as an >>> alternative, not an additional step? >> >> I'd even go further and use "unstable-" as the prefix instead of "!" >> which is way more explicit. >> >> >>> The one issue with doing this is that if a binding is thought to be >>> unstable, but becomes stable later without any changes, we'll have to do >>> busy-work to remove the ! in all the DT files, thus artificially >>> introducing an incompatibility. Perhaps that's fine though? >> >> I'd say yes. Going from unstable to stable is quite a step for a binding >> and that should be visible and worth a patch IMO. Also, when looking at >> a DTS file or some driver code, it will avoid >> confusion/misinterpretation if one can see immediately the status of a >> binding. > > No, it shouldn't. Going from unstable to stable is not a large step, rather it is coming to the point of looking around and realizing that the binding is working quite well. > > I don't think the solution is to put this into the kernel to be checked > at runtime. The better solution is to put it into DTC and make it > complain (either warn or error; depending on build config?) about usage > of compatible strings that are marked in the binding documentation as > unstable. I don't think that's what we talked about on Wednesday though. At a quick glance, this didn't make it into the meeting notes though[1], but is in the presentation we created for the kernel summit readout. Is sharing a link to that before it's presented OK? [1] http://etherpad.osuosl.org/arm-ksummit-2013-day-2 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html