On Thu, 21 Nov 2013 19:21:36 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Umm. Not sure why you feel ignored. We're absolutely going for stability now. g. -- 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
