[Ksummit-2013-discuss] [RFC] of: Allow for experimental device tree bindings

[Wolfram Sang]

> Do we really want to polute the drivers and DT files with a ! in the
> compatible values? I thought we'd considered that, but chosen having the
> drivers that use unstable bindings depend on a Kconfig option as an
> alternative, not an additional step?

I'd even go further and use "unstable-" as the prefix instead of "!"
which is way more explicit.


> The one issue with doing this is that if a binding is thought to be
> unstable, but becomes stable later without any changes, we'll have to do
> busy-work to remove the ! in all the DT files, thus artificially
> introducing an incompatibility. Perhaps that's fine though?

I'd say yes. Going from unstable to stable is quite a step for a binding
and that should be visible and worth a patch IMO. Also, when looking at
a DTS file or some driver code, it will avoid
confusion/misinterpretation if one can see immediately the status of a
binding.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20131023/394ec8ac/attachment-0001.sig>