[PATCH v6 1/4] ARM: OMAP2+: cleaned-up DT support of various ECC schemes

[Olof Johansson]

On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Brian Norris
<computersforpeace at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 01:33:27PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Brian Norris
>> <computersforpeace at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Olof has given good advice on your DT binding and has (slowly) been
>> > responding to other requests for DT review that make it to his list. I
>> > see that he hasn't followed up on your changes (this v6), so pinging him
>> > (as you did) is probably the correct approach. But please do recognize
>> > that the DT list is very high volume, so it's hard to get good timely
>> > responses there.
>>
>> I am not a DT mainainer, but sometimes when I see a binding that
>> appears to be wrong I speak up. In this case, the binding was one of
>> those.
>
> Whoops, my bad. I was deceived by the responses I've seen from you on
> other issues (thanks, BTW). In that case, I haven't seen any response
> from a proper DT binding maintainer :(
>
>> So, I have no more objections to it, and I hope you can get a quick
>> review from a DT maintainer on the rest of the binding.
>
> At this point, I'm comfortable going ahead without their ack, since they
> obviously don't care/don't have the manpower to review.

No, that is not how we handle device tree bindings. They need to be
reviewed, since we are moving over to a model where they will be
considered ABI and can't be changed after the fact. We have a long
backlog of mostly-unreviewed old bindings that we're going to do a
pass through and then lock down, but it would be good to not add to
that backlog with newer bindings.

In other words, there's a strong desire for actual acks on bindings
from those maintainers these days.


-Olof