[ARM ATTEND] DeviceTree status

[Laurent Pinchart]

Hi Olof,

On Wednesday 02 April 2014 22:16:33 Olof Johansson wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Doing a generic reply on an old post, there's been many about DT though:
> 
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 7:55 AM, Rob Herring <robherring2 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I will be attending ELC. I think I may be the only DT maintainer
> > attending (the rest were too scared).
> > 
> > For the ARM summit, I can give a summary of what's happened in DT land
> > since the last ARM summit. There's been some good progress although
> > probably not as much as anyone would like. Given the last summit, I'm
> > sure there is more to discuss. If not, I'm available for beers to
> > celebrate solving all the issues. ;)
> 
> I'm actually not excited about more discussion. There was a _ton_ of
> it in Edinburgh, with many decisions done. Unless people have gone off
> to actually try to implement some of the things we agreed need to be
> implemented, and now need to come back with "it didn't work, we need
> to change everything", then we shouldn't have to meet and spend
> another mind-numbing day discussing DT. Or do we?
> 
> > A key question to discuss is: are DT binding reviews improving?
> 
> Hm. Do we need to meet in a room to talk about that, or can we discuss
> it over email?
> 
> I would say that they have improved, in particular because we've
> started seeing more DT changes go in (and more bindings). There are
> some areas that are still difficult, and I think the answer for those
> is to find the right people and sit down and hash it out. ELC is
> probably a good venue for some of that, but doing it in a room full of
> ARM kernel maintainers might not be.

That's a good point. Would it make sense to move DT discussions to a BoF at 
the ELC ?

> > I also think the process for handling stable vs. unstable bindings
> > needs more discussion. We also need to discuss how to deprecate
> > existing "stable" bindings in order to have a way to stop new usage of
> > poorly designed bindings we want to phase out.
> 
> Do you have a proposal and a process in mind? Having something
> specific to start a discussion off of is more useful than opening it
> up for round table talks.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart