On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 03:45:04PM +0200, Peter Ujfalusi wrote: > On 12/03/2011 01:22 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > > Actually thinking about this some more I think what's concerning me is > > the documentation as much as anything else - if it was just an internal, > > unpublished interface of the OMAP core code which happened to use device > > tree I probably wouldn't have worried about it churning. > Actually it is documented here: > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/omap/omap.txt That's not exactly the point... > In order to move all OMAP drivers to DT - as Benoit already mentioned - > we need additional work in DT. > At this point of time if we add the DT representation we anyways need to > change it as the core will receive the features, and we still need to > fall back to hwmod to get the drivers working. > As soon as we can migrate away from the hwmod we will do, but having > this in place helps us to migrate other parts to DT. And what I'm saying is that my main concern is that you're publishing documenting a binding which isn't intended to be the the final binding and which there's no intention that anyone should use directly anyway. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
