On 19 April 2016 at 18:13, David Daney <ddaney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 04/19/2016 02:15 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote: > [...] >> >> >> From this discussion I have understood that we clearly need a way to >> describe mmc slots in DT! >> >> Unfortunate we should have discussed this before you decided to ship >> devices with DTBs containing non accepted DT bindings, but hey better >> late than never! :-) > > > This is a point where the DT and mmc maintainers have a continual > misunderstanding of the facts. > > There were requests to discuss the binding as far back as 2012: > > https://www.linux-mips.org/archives/linux-mips/2012-05/msg00119.html > > They were met with silence. I am aware of that. I was not the maintainer of MMC back then, if I where I would probably said the same thing as of today. Moreover, for sure you could have been more persistent trying to get peoples attention before you decided to deploy the DTB. > > The firmware containing these bindings is out in the wild. If we deprecate > some of the bindings, the driver will still have to support them in the > future. > > In the case of OCTEON based devices, the device tree bindings are a firmware > <--> kernel ABI as the device trees always come from the firmware and not > some other place. Now, I am not going spend more time arguing, instead I prefer if we can be constructive. As the maintainer of MMC, I have tried to be helpful by providing you with my view on how we can move forward. I don't think it's a big deal for you to implement something along those lines for what I have requested, or is it? Kind regards Uffe -- 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
