On 07/13/12 04:20, Olof Johansson wrote: > On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Thu July 12 2012 18:48:23 Olof Johansson wrote: >>> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Mark Brown >>> <broonie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 10:08:04AM +0200, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'd like to add a "Common device tree bindings for media devices" topic to >>>>> the agenda for consideration. >>>> >>>> It'd be nice to get this to join up with ASoC... >>> >>> >>> There's a handful of various subsystems that have similar topics, >>> maybe slice it the other way and do a device-tree/ACPI breakout that >>> cuts across the various areas instead? >>> >>> Communication really needs to be two-way: Crafting good bindings for a >>> complex piece of hardware isn't trivial and having someone know both >>> the subsystem and device tree principles is rare. At least getting all >>> those people into the same room would be good. >> >> I'm not so sure: I think that most decisions that need to be made are >> quite subsystem specific. Trying to figure out how to implement DT for >> multiple subsystems in one workshop seems unlikely to succeed, simply >> because of lack of time. I also don't think there is much overlap between >> subsystems in this respect, so while the DT implementation for one subsystem >> is discussed, the representatives of other subsystems are twiddling their >> thumbs. >> >> It might be more productive to have one or two DT experts around who >> rotate over the various workshops that have to deal with the DT and can >> offer advice. > > One of the real problems right now is the lack of DT reviewers and > general reviewer fatigue. In particular, many of the proposed bindings > tend to have the same issues (focusing too much on how the > platform_data is structured today and not on what the hardware > actually is), and a few other similar things. > > Based on that I don't think it's a better solution to have the same > few people walk from room to room to cover the same thing multiple > times. No one has to sit there the whole day and listen on it all, but > for those who are genuinely interested in how other subsystems will > handle these bindings, I think it would be very useful to learn from > how they made their decisions. Don't work in a vacuum, etc. > > So, I'd like to formally propose this as a mini-summit or workshop or > whatever you might want to call it. I can help organize it together > with Rob and Grant if needed (especially since Grant has a lot of > other things going on at the moment). > > If there's insufficent interest to do this as a separate event we can > try to accomodate for it as part of the ARM mini-summit, but squeezing > all of that in with the rest of the ARM activities in one day will be > hard. +1 -- Regards, Igor. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
