On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 10:57:09AM -0700, David Lang wrote: > On Sat, 27 Jul 2013, Richard Cochran wrote: > > >On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 11:40:18AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > >>On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 10:48:26AM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote: > >> > >>>[ I disagree about the "more thought" part. The current discussion, > >>> coming years too late after the introduction of DT to ARM Linux, is > >>> contrary evidence enough. ] > >> > >>We did have exactly the same discussion when the DT transition was > >>started - this isn't something that people only just realised might be > >>an issue. There was a deliberate decision to focus on getting the > >>technology deployed to the point where it could be used as a straight > >>replacement for board files and accept that sometimes the results won't > >>be perfect and that we may need to rework as a result. > > > >Can you tell a bit more about this decision? When was it made? Who > >made it? How was it made public? > > I remember seeing some of the discussion on linux-kernel at the > time. I believe there was also a LWN article.
I must have missed it on lkml, although I do try to keep an eye on this topic. I did find http://lwn.net/Articles/414016/ http://lwn.net/Articles/426606/ but no word about unstable bindings. Maybe this was decided by the modern method of secret committee? Thanks, Richard -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
