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

[Brian Norris]

On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Olof Johansson <olof at lixom.net> wrote:
> 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.

This only works if we get a response. I'll repeat this fact: I have
seen absolutely zero response from any DT maintainer regarding this
binding, and they've been CC'd in some capacity since July:

Old revision from July (cross-posted, including the old DT list):
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.omap/100484/

New list:
http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-omap@vger.kernel.org/msg95238.html

All official DT binding maintainers are CC'd here: you can't say you
want more review of bindings, yet fail to review them across 3
versions and almost 3 months. Ball's in your court.

Brian