On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:05:58PM -0000, David Woodhouse wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 13:10 +0000, David Woodhouse wrote: > > > >> Note that you are not describing a normal "DT scenario" here. You are > >> describing a case in which we screwed up > > > > AKA "real world" > > No. Absolutely not. That was a screwup, and it needs to be *rare*. The > excuses you present for it are crappy and uunacceptable. That's not helping. The fact is that is has happened. And we've handled this in the past by just changing the DT bindings. Much of the current frustration comes from the fact that things we used to be able to do easily are now impossible. While I agree that many of these screwups shouldn't have happened in the first place, it's nothing that we were prepared for two years ago. At some point everyone agreed that DT was the way forward, so DT is what we did. Nobody said anything about stable ABI back then, so nobody cared. We treated DT the same way we had treated platform data before, which has inevitable lead to the current mess, which is only slightly better than what we used to have. Thierry
Attachment:
pgpjMMz8VZeZR.pgp
Description: PGP signature
