On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 07:40:57AM +0100, Richard Cochran wrote: > Now, I never saw any proclamation or discussion about "DT is in flux" > on the arm list. If I had, I surely would have complained, and loudly. > AFAICT, this decision was made in rather private circles, but you talk > as if this was abundantly clear. *It was not.* DT has been discussed several times over this year alone, which included discussions about the stability of bindings. Various people in those threads (including myself) have put their views forward. My position has been that if an interface ends up being published in a -final kernel, then it is part of the ABI, because a -final kernel is an end-product. It's a final release which says "we've done the development, it's finished for users use." If it's not then it shouldn't be in a -final kernel, or if it has to be there for development purposes, it needs to be hidden behind a "this is in development" label. I've said that several times in the DT discussions and I believe basically been ignored. Frankly, I've said my bit and I've given up caring. If no one wants to listen, my attitude now is to just shut up and let people learn their lessons the hard way. A bit like what I ended up doing with the clk API and the idiocracy over the "let's pass a NULL struct device and a system clock name because its simple" stuff which then caused people a lot of pain... and guess what, when done right (like the majority of cases today) it's a hell of a lot easier. People had to be left to find out for themselves that I was right. -- 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
