Posted Jul 31, 2013 11:28 UTC (Wed) by neiljerram (subscriber, #12005)
Parent article: Device trees as ABI
Some missing context for me: why was it decided to move from board files to device tree?
The reasons I'd guess are efficiency of expression and/or not wanting the description to be baked into the kernel. If the latter _was_ one of the reasons, surely it was obvious immediately that this would be a new ABI and so raise the question of stability? If the latter is not a strong reason, why not avoid the stable ABI question by compiling the DT and baking it into the kernel?