Hi Timur, On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 06:37:16AM -0500, Timur Tabi wrote: > Sebastian Frias wrote: > >Let's make an abstraction of the word 'binding', 'create a binding', etc. and > >just focus on this: > >- Somebody submits a DT file that contains properties and nodes that are > >*not used* by any Linux driver. > >- Said properties and nodes serve as HW description for HW blocks for which > >*there is no* Linux driver. > > > >The goal of the above is to use the DT as the authoritative (and single) > >source of HW definition. > > No. > > I've grown weary of this discussion. We have explained multiple > times why this is impractical. Using the DT to document hardware > makes no sense. No one is going to do that, and anyone who attempts > to submit a DT binding without an actual driver will get rejected. Please don't make the same mistake of trivialising this in either direction. While we appear to be going in circles, in general there are potentially valid cases to consider -- there may be system properties/devices that don't happen to matter to Linux, but are generic, well-defined, and matter to others. Bindings for those should be considered. In the absence of any example, as with this thread, there is nothing to consider, however. Thanks, Mark. -- 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
