> if device trees could be used as a base for other kernels, we'll be better > off and making the format either code or an ELF binary doesn't help that.
I'm reminded of (IIRC) the answer Rex Dieter gave when asked why KDE bothered to have a Windows version. (paraphrasing) "Because requiring developers to create code that will run on Windows is the best guarantee of good level separation and cleaning coding practices."
Just so with device-tree: if the bindings have names specific to Linux, then there will be a temptation to take the extra step of choosing bindings that are specific to particular kernel release, and then we'll never have the stable ABI. While I argued with the stable ABI idea in the cited discussion thread, the discussion is more about how to practically achieve the goals and when, not what they are. Forcing an OS-agnostic interface on the device-tree will force better coding practices, as Dieter expressed.