On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 04:41:23PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > I think it is best to establish any process around DT assuming no strong > binding stability. Eventually the DT binding update frequency will > converge to zero while the kernel will continue to be developed. But > the DTB for a particular hardware might have to change from time to > time. This is exactly what happened on our PPC platforms, the bindings churned for a bit and have been stable now since 2.6.2x something. I'm hopefully seeing something similar on kirkwood. 3.7 bindings look nothing like 3.12 bindings, but the 3.12 bindings will run lightly patched 3.10 and onwards just fine, and there are no pending patches I've seen that would change that for 3.13.. To me, it is an advantage to DT that it does converge on something stable, while .c code always gets light churn, no matter where it is. 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
