On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:34:12AM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > > There's another thing with DT bindings that makes them needlessly hard > to settle on. Let's say you come up with a binding that accurately > describes the hardware at hand and has been proven to work. Now people > keep telling you that it might not be good enough, for whatever reason > so eventually you decide to be bold and tell them that you're aware of > everything that stable DT bindings imply and that there might be some > risk of having to maintain two bindings because the first one didn't > turn out to be perfect and yada yada. You make a good point here. In my own limited experiences with DT kernel development, a big debate always emerged about exactly how these bindings should be called. Not being a real DT expert myself, I really couldn't understand what the point was, but I just implemented what the DT people wanted (or just dropped the submission altogether, in one case). I think the frustration that you have experienced is simply a result of the attitude on the DT list. Maybe the real issue is attitude and personalities, and not the hurdle of stable bindings. Thanks, Richard -- 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
