Do we have people interested in device tree janitoring / cleanup?
olof at lixom.net
Wed Jul 24 11:27:13 EDT 2013
Every now and then I come across a binding that's just done Wrong(tm),
merged through a submaintainer tree and hasn't seen proper review --
if it had, it wouldn't look the way it does. It's something we're
starting to address now since there's more people stepping up to be
maintainers, but there's a backlog of bad bindings already merged.
Often they are produced by translating the platform_data structures
directly over into device-tree properties without consideration to
describing the hardware or usual conventions, using key/value pairs
instead of boolean properties, etc.
Getting involved in cleaning up these kind of bindings is a great way
to learn "the ways of device tree" for someone that has interest in
Latest find in this area is the Maxim 8925 bindings, that I came
across since they caused a compile warning on some defconfig. I'll
post a patch to address the warning but if someone else feels like
fixing the bindings on top of it that would be appreciated!
More information about the linux-arm-kernel