On Tue, 22 Oct 2013, Matt Porter wrote: > DT has many benefits. It would be great to leverage them as long as it > doesn't interfere with the rate of change and willingness to evolve code > that's always been the strength of the kernel process. That strength is > too valuable to trade away for the "DT as ABI" vision. Amen. This is the best statement I've read about DT so far. Having "stable" DT bindings is just a dream. Experience so far is showing that this is neither practical nor realistic. The unstructured free-for-all approach isn't good either. Some compromise between the two extremes needs to be found. Nicolas -- 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
