On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 11:22:30AM +0100, Andre Przywara wrote: > > The fundamental difference is that we're mostly just a bunch of spare > > time programmers working on this platform, with a partial > > documentation for the controllers, at best. > > > > You forced me to ask these developpers to work on their weekends and > > evenings on some crazy corner cases to maintain the backward > > compatibility. And honestly, both from a technical and human > > standpoint, I definitely understand if some of them are just leaving > > and don't want to work on it anymore. I would probably do the same in > > their position. > > > > And having to ask that for companies like ARM or SUSE just makes it > > more frustrating to be honest. So there's simply no way you have > > forward compatibility while I'm there. Or you manage to convince all > > the ARM maintainers and enforce that compatibility for all the > > platforms. > > I understand that from your point of view there is no way of investing > huge efforts in staying forward compatible, but I am not asking for > that (and by no way forcing this!). Instead this suggestion is a small > tweak to achieve this. We're trying to remain compatible but if there's any technical reason, then we won't be. I don't want anyone to assume we will, and to rely on the fact that we are actually guaranteeing this. > So I am sorry if those things frustrate you (which I can understand > very well), but I believe fixing the DT in a proper way is > much more user friendly in the long term (actually this issue was > brought forward by a user[1]). Given the current state of the industry, I don't really see how the DT can allow you to do what you are trying to achieve. Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
