On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 10:40:30AM +0100, Lucas Stach wrote: > Am Donnerstag, den 11.02.2016, 18:08 +0100 schrieb Maxime Ripard: > [...] > > > > > Having code in mainline comes with responsibilities. One of those is to > > > > > keep said code working for existing users. Otherwise, why bother having > > > > > it in mainline at all? > > > > > > > > None of our existing users ever complained. > > > > > > I believe that in this case, Andre was complaining about this particular > > > breakage, unless I have misunderstood. > > > > > > To be clear, I'm arguing for the strategy going forward. If no-one has > > > complained about the stuff broken up to this point, let's not waste time > > > restoring that. > > > > > > Going forward we need to keep old DTBs supported. > > > > I find that stand a bit dishonest. > > > > You, DT maintainers, admit that you're not doing your job properly, > > and that burden relies on the platform maintainers? Or should I take > > it as you volunteering to maintain that code? > > > > But ok. Let's do that. Make sure that the other platform maintainers > > are aware that this is the rule too though. I surely don't want to be > > alone in that boat. > > FWIW: I always thought it's the platform maintainers job to enforce a > reasonable level of DT stability. I don't see how the DT maintainers > could provide the necessary in-depth review with every platform being > different in many subtle ways. > > For the i.MX platform we actually enforced a baseline of DT stability by > shooting down patches that break DT stability for the sake of adding new > features, or when trying to put "fixes" into the DT, that could be > solved entirely inside the kernel. > > Yes, mistakes happen and and we can not really prevent all breakage, > especially when the bindings were not strictly enough defined and board > DT writers may have interpreted them differently, but it is definitely > possible to keep DTs reasonably stable if the platform maintainers care > about that. > > I strongly disagree with platform maintainers denying that duty, by > claiming that DTs won't be completely stable ever, so there is no reason > to even care. A DT is either stable or not. If it is "reasonably" stable, then it's not. Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
