> 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 ... Okay, thanks for clarifying. > 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. Word. > 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. I don't get this one. Yes, they are of perpetual nature, so how could we remove them from the kernel tree? What I am afraid of is: tentative solutions tend to stay, because the need for a proper solution is reduced. Yet, finding proper generic bindings might take some time which doesn't meet the high pressure around DT at the moment. Regards, Wolfram -- Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
