On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Jason Cooper <ja...@lakedaemon.net> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 02:11:31PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Olof Johansson <o...@lixom.net> wrote: > >> > One problem that needs to be solved is obviously how a binding >> > graduates from tentative to locked. This work isn't going to be very >> > interesting to most people, I suspect. Think standards committee type >> > work. >> >> I think a time based stabilization period would be better than a >> separate directory to apply bindings too. Or time plus periodic review >> perhaps. > > The only problem with a time-based versus separate directory is how do > users who've downloaded the tree determine which bindings are stable? > If they pull a tarball, or receive an SDK, there is most likely no git > history attached.
Well, if time based includes moving the binding out of the kernel, then that is what defines it as stable or not. I guess that is a form of a separate directory. I don't think we want to be moving bindings twice: tentative -> stable and kernel -> DT repo. The policy could be as simple as an binding without change in at least N kernel releases is moved out and stable. Rob -- 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/
