On Wed, 2013-10-23 at 20:51 +0200, Richard Cochran wrote: > I have no problem with new kernel features unlocked by new DT > bindings. > > I *do* have a problem with new kernels breaking existing DT bindings. well this assume the new feature does not need modifying an existing binding. again taking the Kirkwood crypto example, the driver was written using lets say "PIO" mode, and a patch has been posted recently that mostly rewrite the driver to use DMA mode after. chances are the binding written by the first developer would not be the same at all as the second does the "DT bindings validation team" will have to look inside SOC datasheet and decide whether the developer described the hardware correctly ? In another post, someone proposed that time would tell if a binding was "stable" enough. In that case that's not true, 2 years have passed before someone took a glance at what the hardware could do and proposed a different implementation. -- Maxime -- 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
