On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 04:33:39PM +0200, Maxime Bizon wrote: > > On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 16:19 +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > > > 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. > > Side question, in your point of view, how is that better ? The representation of the data may not be all that much better. But as a side-effect of the whole DT shebang we've made improvements in many other areas as well. Granted, we could've done that without DT too, but DT was a pretty good motivator. I also think that during the conversion of platform data to DT we've made attempts to make the representation more generic and introduce common or standard properties. So on the whole I think we have managed to unify many things, which I think is a good thing. > current DT tools are not able to validate a file wrt its schema, so for > now we just moved platdata to DTS files and lost compiler type checking > in between. There's been talk about fixing that. I guess it might have been better if we had had such a tool two years ago, but I certainly hadn't thought about it before, so who am I to blame anyone else for not writing it. > I respectfully understand people fighting for *stable* DT because I see > the benefits behind this, even if IMO they absolutely do not outweigh > the pain. > > But I fail to see any benefits of "forever unstable" DT, if you have to > tie the kernel tree with a DTB file, the description could have been > left in C code. Well the longterm goal certainly is to separate both, and keeping both in lockstep was a means of easing the initial conversion. There's certainly a lot of pain, but I also think that whatever we had before just didn't work out so well. If it had all been sunshine and lollipops then there wouldn't have been a need to change anything, right? Thierry
Attachment:
pgp7IXX9Yt6IV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
