On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 12:11 AM, Stewart Smith <stewart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> I'd prefer they be documented in the kernel especially if they are >> used by the kernel. Of course, there's IBM bindings covered by various >> ?PAPR specs which wouldn't make sense to duplicate, but I'm guessing >> what's documented in skiboot are not covered by those specs. > > Correct. > > I don't have an objection to docs being in both places, as long as we > could keep both in sync. Would suitable comments in the RST doc files > pointing to the skiboot repo as the canonical copy work? I'm okay if the kernel just references the skiboot doc and when we review that, we can review the link. If it's something intended to be common (among devices), then I'd like it to be documented within the main binding docs (i.e. the kernel ones). Of course, I will feel differently if everyone wanted to do this or the bindings conflict with upstream bindings. > I'd like to be able to just diff a subtree of kernel and skiboot to see > if the docs have diverged. > > We may also need to think of a way to ensure that any of that moving > back/forth of edits is done in a way that makes licensing sense too > (skiboot is Apache 2.0) Yeah, that's not the only licensing issue. Any volunteers to clean up ambiguous licensing. Rob -- 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
