On 10/07/14 11:59, David Daney wrote: > On 10/07/2014 09:31 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 11:21:11AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote: >>> On 10/07/14 00:28, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>>> Devicetree bindings are supposed to be operating system independent >>>> and should thus not describe how a specific functionality is >>>> implemented >>>> in Linux. >>> >>> So your argument is that linux/Documentation/devicetree/bindings should >>> not be specific to Linux. Merely hosted in the Linux kernel source >>> repository. >>> >>> Well that's certainly a point of view. >>> >> Not specifically my argument, really, and nothing new either. But, >> yes, I do >> think that devicetree bindings descriptions should not include >> implementation >> details, especially since those may change over time (as is the case >> here). >> > > I fully agree. > > Many device trees come from outside the kernel (i.e. they are supplied > by the system boot environment). Obviously these device trees cannot be > changed at the whim of kernel developers, *and* it is perfectly > reasonable to think that software other than the Linux kernel will run > on this type of system too. > > So yes, it is really true, device trees are not a Linux kernel private > implementation detail, they are really an external ABI that, although > documented in the kernel source tree, cannot be changed in incompatible > ways as time progresses. Ah. Existing thing with backstory among the in-crowd, so I'll assume "git subtree" was previously suggested and you had that discussion already and decided against it. Carry on, Rob -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-metag" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
