Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] [ATTEND] Handling of devicetree bindings
[Posted July 24, 2013 by corbet]
| From: |
| David Woodhouse <dwmw2-wEGCiKHe2LqWVfeAwA7xHQ-AT-public.gmane.org> |
| To: |
| Greg KH <greg-U8xfFu+wG4EAvxtiuMwx3w-AT-public.gmane.org> |
| Subject: |
| Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] [ATTEND] Handling of devicetree bindings |
| Date: |
| Mon, 15 Jul 2013 19:50:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID: |
| <1373914227.2128.24.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> |
| Cc: |
| ksummit-2013-discuss-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA-AT-public.gmane.org,
"devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ-AT-public.gmane.org" <devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ-AT-public.gmane.org> |
| Archive‑link: | |
Article |
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 09:56 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> How about a hint for subsystem maintainers as to what exactly we should
> be looking for with these bindings? I for one have no idea what is
> "right" vs. "wrong" with them, so a document explaining this would be
> good to have.
>
> Or if we already have it, a pointer to it perhaps?
The biggest thing is that it should describe the *hardware*, in a
fashion which is completely OS-agnostic.
The same device-tree binding should work for Solaris, *BSD, Windows,
eCos, and everything else.
I've heard tales of people having to keep device-tree files for their
board tightly in sync with the specific *version* of the Linux kernel
that they were shipped with.
That makes me very sad, because it almost certainly means that someone
has done it completely and utterly wrong.
--
David Woodhouse Open Source Technology Centre
David.Woodhouse-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org Intel
Corporation
_______________________________________________
devicetree-discuss mailing list
devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
