On 16/07/12 14:00, Wolfram Sang wrote:
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.
I'm certainly not adverse to doing this, although I'd prefer it was
completed in the short-term. So should we do it?
--
Lee Jones
Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead
M: +44 77 88 633 515
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
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
