Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm-soc tree with the i2c-embeddedtree

[Lee Jones]

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 â Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/