On 22 October 2013 18:42, Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. While I entirely agree that the concept of DT bindings as stable ABI is a complete pipe dream, it would be nice if we could have some suitably restricted parts of it that are defined as stable, for the benefit of tools like kvmtool and QEMU which construct device tree blobs from scratch to describe the virtual machine environment. (That means roughly CPUs, RAM, virtio-mmio devices and a UART at least.) As the person who has to maintain the device-tree-writing code for ARM QEMU, I'd actually trust a carefully limited guarantee of ABI stability for specific bindings much more than I do the current airy promises that everything is stable. thanks -- PMM -- 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
