On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Wolfram Sang <w.sang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Arnd, since you committed the patches, can you please comment? I'd > prefer to drop this DT conversion for now, otherwise we might have to > support this possibly rushed bindings forever? LinusW, what do you > think? Well I think I ACKed that from the point of view that it will work as expected with ux500 with these bindings. What is best from the I2C subsystem point of view is another question ... Overall I think we have this general problem with a lot of DT conversion happening right now: the tempo is set very high and all chip vendors want DT support RealQuickNowPreferrablyYesterday and that makes it hard for subsystem maintainers to hold back, and I also fear vendor-specific properties are overused for this reason. And about the perpetual nature of device tree bindings it appears to me that the modus operandi right now is to not regard any of these as written in stone until they are removed from the kernel tree. We have plenty of drivers patching trees and drivers in one for the moment. Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
