Re: DT bindings as ABI [was: Do we have people interested in devicetree janitoring / cleanup?]
From: Jason Gunthorpe
Date: Mon Jul 29 2013 - 14:41:02 EST
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 07:16:07PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> What does it take? Good practice, care, thought and planning. All
> the qualities which should already be present for kernel _engineers_.
> Not an "lets create something for me, I don't care about anyone else"
I agree with what you've written, but we are looking at this from
different ends of the problem.
I fully agree you can create a main line kernel GIT tree that has a
stable DT ABI.
However, I as an ODM, with time pressure, cannot wait for the kernel
folks to finish this work. So from my perspective the DT will not be
stable, as I will put whatever interm stuff I choose to have a
Thus I have to design my systems for an unstable DT, and the message
from the kernel community to people in my posistion should be:
When you ship early with non-mainlined DT schema, design your boot
system around an unstable DT. Plan to migrate your DT to upstream
once it becomes finalized.
Here is the rub: Once I design for an unstable DT I simply don't
derive value from the kernel communities work to create a stable DT.
So who is getting the benefit of this work, and is it worth the cost?
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/