From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A26ADDE3B for ; Sun, 14 Jan 2007 11:30:24 +1100 (EST) In-Reply-To: <11687326992407-git-send-email-grant.likely@secretlab.ca> References: <11687326992407-git-send-email-grant.likely@secretlab.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v623) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <84dba8e3e19d453c2961c4022ddb77de@kernel.crashing.org> From: Segher Boessenkool Subject: Re: [PATCH] [POWERPC] Make it blatently clear; 5200 device tree is not yet stable Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 01:31:00 +0100 To: grant.likely@secretlab.ca Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, paulus@samba.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > Please apply for 2.6.20. This is documentation only, but I don't want > to give people false assumptions about the stability of the 5200 device > tree bindings Good idea. > +********** DRAFT *********** > +* WARNING: Do not depend on definiton remaining static between > +* kernel versions. The 5200 device tree conventions are still in flux > +* and could change without notice. Keep an eye on the linuxppc-dev > +* mailing list for more details > +* > +* Hopefully by 2.6.21 it will be stable. ---gcl, Jan 13, 2007 > +********** DRAFT *********** But could you please rephrase in a way that doesn't suggest the *kernel* defines what the device bindings are? They are only documented in the kernel tree right now, sure, but that's not the same thing ;-) Segher