Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] DT bindings as ABI [was: Do we have peopleinterested in device tree janitoring / cleanup?]
From: Grant Likely
Date: Tue Jul 30 2013 - 00:35:29 EST
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Maxime Ripard
> On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 03:19:03PM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 11:12:53AM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>> > I'm not really sure what effect on users this has. Maybe you should define
>> > "users".
>> > Care to explain this reasoning?
>> Use Case
>> User acquires a machine running ARM Linux version 3.x, with u-boot
>> and dtb in a read only flash partition. The board boots and works just
>> fine. However, for his application, the user requires a new kernel
>> feature that appeared in version 3.y where y > x. He compiles the new
>> kernel, and it also works.
> I'm afraid this kind of use case will never be properly supported, DT
> stable ABI or not.
Why? New kernel features should be no problem at all.
New driver features /might/ not be available, but only if the new
feature requires additional data that isn't present in the tree and
cannot be obtained elsewhere.
> Think about this: what kernel will actually be shipped in that board?
> Most likely, it will be a BSP kernel from the vendor. Does the vendor
> will have made that commitment to have a stable ABI for the DT? Will it
> use the same bindings than mainline? Do we want to support all the crazy
> bindings every vendor will come up with?
That's not a DT issue. That an out-of-tree board/SoC support issue. DT
doesn't make that any better or worse.
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/