On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 11:10:30AM -1000, Mitch Bradley wrote: > On 8/16/2012 8:38 AM, Stephen Warren wrote: > > Device tree bindings shouldn't reference Linux documentation; the > > bindings are supposed to be OS-agnostic. > While it is true that bindings should try to be OS-agnostic, there is > the practical matter of where to put documentation so that it is widely > accessible. The Linux source tree is one of the most accessible things > there is, considering how widely it is replicated. > As the original instigator of the policy that the device tree should > describe the hardware "OS-neutrally", I personally don't have a problem > with bindings referring to Linux documentation. I wouldn't like > references to proprietary and inaccessible documentation. OS agnosticness isn't the only issue here - the other problem with using Linux documentation is that except for things that are specifically userspace interfaces and the DT bindings nothing is intended to be stable so bindings defined in terms of Linux documentation may randomly change. We're not doing an awesome job of that with DT right now but we should try and so we ought to avoid including non-ABI things in ABIs like this.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
