[PATCH v2] ARM: DT: binding fixup to align with vendor-prefixes.txt
cdaudt at gmail.com
Fri Aug 9 14:49:42 EDT 2013
[resend in plain-text]
On 2013-08-09 9:11 AM, "Stephen Warren" <swarren at wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
> On 08/06/2013 03:40 PM, Christian Daudt wrote:
> > On 13-08-05 09:21 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> >>>>> Required root node property:
> >>>>> -compatible = "bcm,bcm11351";
> >>>>> +compatible = "brcm,bcm11351";
> >>>> In a patch of mine that deprecated a property, Mark wondered if it
> >>>> would
> >>>> make sense to mention the old deprecated DT content simply to document
> >>>> that it existed, so that old DTs would still make sense when checking
> >>>> the documentation. I wonder if the same argument applies to this patch?
> >>> I would think the opposite. Deprecated items should be dropped from
> >>> documentation. They are in the code (for a holdover period) but clearly
> >>> marked as deprecated. No one should be extending the life of these, and
> >>> adding documentation on it is a step in the wrong direction of making it
> >>> easier for it to linger beyond what it should.
> >> The deprecated stuff will have to be fully documented once the DT schema
> >> validation is in place...
> > This deprecated code should be short lived, given that in actual fact it
> > is actually quite unnecessary since no boards exist that rely on it.
> Is this patch for v3.11-rc* or v3.12?
I'm guessing it's too late for 3.11 at this point.
> If it's for v3.12, then I see that v3.11 will be released with a variety
> of users of the old compatible values, hence the old compatible value is
> an ABI, and hence we should continue to support and document it (as
I think whether bindings automatically become ABI at kernel release is
still an open topic. And as I mentioned in this case we are the only
ones affected and we don't have a problem with the change.
But if that's the case then there's no point to this patch. I'll just
add bcm to vendor-prefixes and be done with it.
I'm okay either way. Just need to know what direction to take asap so
I can stop telling devs to keep changing back and forth...
More information about the linux-arm-kernel