On Tue, 22 Oct 2013, Peter Maydell wrote: > 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.) This subset is probably uncontroversial and easy. 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
