Hi Mark, On 09/13/2016 05:47 PM, Mark Rutland wrote: >>> If you believe that the bindings don't matter, then there is absolutely >>> no reason for them to exist in the first place. >>> >>> If those binding matter to *anyone*, then those collating the bindings >>> have some responsibility of stewardship, and that includes >>> review/maintenance/etc. >> >> The thing is that right now it seems the "responsibility of stewardship" >> lies only within "Linux", whereas DT is proposed as open for everybody, >> Bootloaders, FreeBSD, etc. >> >> In that case, shouldn't the "responsibility" be shared? > > Ideally, yes. > > Which is one of the reasons devicetree.org was set up as a common forum > for projects to collaborate on devicetree. I see, what about using different 'sections' on a DT to allow different parties be responsible for their 'section'? - 'generic' sections (i.e.: those using bindings used by Linux drivers) would be under stewardship of Linux. - 'specific' sections (i.e.: my example, bindings *not used by Linux*, but they could be bindings for other OSs as you said) would be under a different stewardship. DT seems essentially free-form, like XML. One could imagine that some tool could then be used to guarantee that some parts of DT conform to a given XML schema, including backwards compatibility, while at the same time ignoring 'staging'/'specific' stuff. NOTE: this appears to be possible using 'overlays' as Warner suggested, but in that case not all parts are public, which limits public information. Best regards, Sebastian -- 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
