From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753418Ab2GPNA3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jul 2012 09:00:29 -0400 Received: from metis.ext.pengutronix.de ([92.198.50.35]:41953 "EHLO metis.ext.pengutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751808Ab2GPNAZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jul 2012 09:00:25 -0400 Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 15:00:15 +0200 From: Wolfram Sang To: Lee Jones Cc: Linus Walleij , Stephen Rothwell , Olof Johansson , Arnd Bergmann , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alessandro Rubini , Linus Walleij , Stephen Warren , Deepak Saxena , devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, Grant Likely Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm-soc tree with the i2c-embedded tree Message-ID: <20120716130015.GF17435@pengutronix.de> References: <20120710164130.f38e4d1673f925ddb13914c9@canb.auug.org.au> <20120712131231.GH2194@pengutronix.de> <20120716101706.GB17435@pengutronix.de> <5003FB7C.4030509@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Wb5NtZlyOqqy58h0" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5003FB7C.4030509@linaro.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2001:6f8:1178:2:21e:67ff:fe11:9c5c X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: wsa@pengutronix.de X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on metis.ext.pengutronix.de); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-PTX-Original-Recipient: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --Wb5NtZlyOqqy58h0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > >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. >=20 > I agree with what you say to some extent, but I believe that it is > more important to have a working solution now than to ensure that > each bindings are as unique as possible. After any suggestion of > consolidation, a move from vendor specific to generically defined > Device Tree bindings is trivial. Especially in the current stage > where adaptions and definitions are still fluid. See my response to Linus. I do understand your view and where it comes =66rom. As a maintainer, I have other priorities. No offence involved, it needs some settlement. --=20 Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | --Wb5NtZlyOqqy58h0 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlAEEF8ACgkQD27XaX1/VRsWNgCfe0+JZ2Rxhzcwt/MRWuszihvN hXIAnRzaYpdnveXY261g/nCxzlYhMXT+ =uOx2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Wb5NtZlyOqqy58h0--