Hi Doug, On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 6:37 AM, Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Alim, > > On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> You are breaking backward compatibility here. If your change is >>> merged then all old boards will instantly break. Since the "dts" and >>> code changes will likely be merged through different trees you'll end >>> up with a bunch of broken trees until everything is merged together. >>> Even if you don't subscribe to the stable bindings theory this is not >>> acceptable. >>> >> yes the major concern in this series is probably this, which breaks >> things unless everything merge in one go and via one tree. Thats why I >> re-based everything including dts change on mmc-tree for this case and >> added device-tree mailing list for more opinion etc. > > Got it. I doubt that folks will like this, but I could be wrong. In > order for this to work, you'd need all changes in the series to land > in _both_ the ARMSoC tree and the MMC tree. That's not unheard of, > but it doesn't seem ideal. > > You also break bisect-ability here since without the code the DTS > change will break things and without the DTS change the code will > break things. > > If you add all the above to the fact that bindings are supposed to be > stable (ish) I'm not convinced this will land. > Hmmm......Ok, let me take a re-look on this, I will try to use existing bindings. > > -Doug -- Regards, Alim -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
