ACPI vs DT at runtime

[Grant Likely]

On Thu, 21 Nov 2013 19:21:36 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux at arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 07:40:57AM +0100, Richard Cochran wrote:
> > Now, I never saw any proclamation or discussion about "DT is in flux"
> > on the arm list. If I had, I surely would have complained, and loudly.
> > AFAICT, this decision was made in rather private circles, but you talk
> > as if this was abundantly clear. *It was not.*
> 
> DT has been discussed several times over this year alone, which
> included discussions about the stability of bindings.  Various
> people in those threads (including myself) have put their views
> forward.
> 
> My position has been that if an interface ends up being published in a
> -final kernel, then it is part of the ABI, because a -final kernel is
> an end-product.  It's a final release which says "we've done the
> development, it's finished for users use."  If it's not then it shouldn't
> be in a -final kernel, or if it has to be there for development purposes,
> it needs to be hidden behind a "this is in development" label.
> 
> I've said that several times in the DT discussions and I believe
> basically been ignored.  Frankly, I've said my bit and I've given up
> caring.

Umm. Not sure why you feel ignored. We're absolutely going for stability
now.

g.