2012/9/26 Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 12:03:44AM +0900, Inki Dae wrote: >> 2012/9/25 Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > >> > Aren't DT bindings considered as an ABI, and required to be supported more or >> > less forever ? If you merge this DT binding you'll have to keep supporting it. >> > That's why DT bindings should not be rushed in. > >> is ABI required for DT binding? I know DT binding parses just lcd >> timing data from device tree file so ABI isn't needed. but when it >> comes to DT, I'm novice yet so there may be my missing point. could >> you tell me why DT bindings are considered as an ABI? if there is my >> missing point, will consider it again. > > It's supposed to be possible to ship a DT with a board and then boot any > OS or OS version on the board. If the meaning of the DT keeps changing > then this becomes impossible, you need to keep changing the DT when you > change the thing that parses it (rendering the whole exercise pointless). > thank you for your comments. got it. DT is built as an binary(dtb) and the dtb file should be re-used without any modifications. will keep this patch until the videomode helper will be merged to mainline so that this could be modified based on videomode helper later. > _______________________________________________ > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
