On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 10:35:58 -0800, Olof Johansson <olof@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 6:40 AM, Grant Likely <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > > > Today on the devicetree conf call we (Rob, Ian and I) talked about > > culling the volume of traffic on the devicetree list so that it would > > be more useful to the DTC maintainers and non-Linux users like > > freebsd. We'd like to propose creating the following two lists so that > > those interested don't need to drink from the firehose: > > > > devicetree-compiler: Specifically for discussing dt tooling topics > > (parsing, schema validation, data format) > > This makes a lot of sense, and should help to decouple the bindings > and standards from the tool. Should have happened a long time ago. :) > > > devicetree-spec: For discussing 'core' device tree bindings. ie. > > anything that would be a candidate for putting into an ePAPR type > > spec. Individual device bindings would continue to be posted to > > devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, but anything affecting subsystems or > > generic patterns should be posted to this new list. > > I predict that it will be hard for someone posting a patch to tell if > they should send it to this list or some other list. It might be > convenient for you guys to ignore the high-volume list and just focus > on this one, but for the people who post patches it just makes it more > complicated. IMHO. I'm inclined to stick with the default of post to the original devicetree list via get_maintainer.pl, and then direct people to the core list on a case by case basis when they start doing something generic. 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
