On 21 November 2013 20:47, Grant Likely <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. +1 >> 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. What I was hoping for is a better way to enforce this by taking the dts files out of the kernel. I think that's the point where the bindings can become ABI. In the meantime we rely on contributors and reviewers making sure backwards compatibility is preserved. But I guess we'll eventually get there. -- Catalin -- 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
