Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] ARM topic: Is DT on ARM the solution, or is there something better?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 07:07:11PM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 11:15:56AM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > 
> > Right now, we're taking away much of that flexibility and I see progress
> > on ARM actively hindered.
> 
> Baloney.
> 
> No one is taking away your flexibility or hindering progress. It is
> really very simple. Just make an arm-dt-devel tree where you can both
> change the bindings at will and recommend to people. Once bindings
> have seen some real world testing and have had time to mature, then
> request a merge into mainline.

The argument is that DT is a stable ABI we must never change it once
it hits mainline.

This leads to not accepting patches into mainline until they are
'stable'.

Whihc leads to vendors shipping code in real systems to real customers
with those out of tree patches. (Deadlines are a bitch)

The vendors are now forced to treat the DT as an *UNSTABLE* ABI
because they are shipping non-mainline DT schemas and plan to upgrade
to mainline someday.

Now the vendors no longer value DT as a stable ABI.

So, why are we making argument #1? Seems pretty self defeating to me.

Jason
--
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




[Index of Archives]     [Device Tree Compilter]     [Device Tree Spec]     [Linux Driver Backports]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux PCI Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Yosemite Backpacking]
  Powered by Linux