On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 07:21:46PM +0100, 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.) > > 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. > Agreed. I like the idea of Documentation/ABI, though of course it would help if its contents would move from testing/ to stable/ at some point ;-). Guenter -- 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
