> >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. > > I agree with what you say to some extent, but I believe that it is > more important to have a working solution now than to ensure that > each bindings are as unique as possible. After any suggestion of > consolidation, a move from vendor specific to generically defined > Device Tree bindings is trivial. Especially in the current stage > where adaptions and definitions are still fluid. See my response to Linus. I do understand your view and where it comes from. As a maintainer, I have other priorities. No offence involved, it needs some settlement. -- Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
