On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Olof Johansson <olof@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Brian Norris > <computersforpeace@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 01:33:27PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote: >>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Brian Norris >>> <computersforpeace@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> > Olof has given good advice on your DT binding and has (slowly) been >>> > responding to other requests for DT review that make it to his list. I >>> > see that he hasn't followed up on your changes (this v6), so pinging him >>> > (as you did) is probably the correct approach. But please do recognize >>> > that the DT list is very high volume, so it's hard to get good timely >>> > responses there. >>> >>> I am not a DT mainainer, but sometimes when I see a binding that >>> appears to be wrong I speak up. In this case, the binding was one of >>> those. >> >> Whoops, my bad. I was deceived by the responses I've seen from you on >> other issues (thanks, BTW). In that case, I haven't seen any response >> from a proper DT binding maintainer :( >> >>> So, I have no more objections to it, and I hope you can get a quick >>> review from a DT maintainer on the rest of the binding. >> >> At this point, I'm comfortable going ahead without their ack, since they >> obviously don't care/don't have the manpower to review. > > No, that is not how we handle device tree bindings. They need to be > reviewed, since we are moving over to a model where they will be > considered ABI and can't be changed after the fact. We have a long > backlog of mostly-unreviewed old bindings that we're going to do a > pass through and then lock down, but it would be good to not add to > that backlog with newer bindings. > > In other words, there's a strong desire for actual acks on bindings > from those maintainers these days. This only works if we get a response. I'll repeat this fact: I have seen absolutely zero response from any DT maintainer regarding this binding, and they've been CC'd in some capacity since July: Old revision from July (cross-posted, including the old DT list): http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.omap/100484/ New list: http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg95238.html All official DT binding maintainers are CC'd here: you can't say you want more review of bindings, yet fail to review them across 3 versions and almost 3 months. Ball's in your court. Brian -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
